Preamble

PRAYERS

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

British Waterways Board

Rates

Community Land Act

Local Government (Policy-making)

Oil Pollution

Council Houses (Sale)

Town and Country Planning Association (Report)

Local Authorities (Direct Labour Organisations)

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TRIBUTES)

THE HON. MEMBER FOR CHINGFORD

BILL OF RIGHTS

BILL OF RIGHTS

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

WATER AUTHORITIES (CONSTITUTION)

Orders of the Day — BANKING BILL

Clause 27

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM CONTRIBUTIONS

Clause 36

RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CERTAIN NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS

NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL

Clause 1

CONSTITUTION OF CENTRAL COUNCIL

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF COUNCIL

Clause 3

STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

Clause 4

THE MIDWIFERY COMMITTEE

Clause 8

JOINT COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS

Schedule 8

REPEALS

ESTATE AGENTS BILL

Clause 1

ESTATE AGENCY WORK

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [Lords]

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS [MONEY]

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [Lords]

Clause 65

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL [Lords]

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL [Lords]

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL [Lords]

DARLASTON (INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT)

ROYAL ASSENT

ADJOURNMENT

Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

British Waterways Board

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he expects to meet the chairman of the British Waterways Board.

Mr. Sever: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when next he expects to meet the chairman of the British Waterways Board.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): I expect to see the chairman of the British Waterways Board during the next few weeks.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State draw the attention of the chairman of the British Waterways Board to the need for urgent repairs to be carried out to the canal system which has been languishing untended for some months due to an industrial dispute? Is he aware of the number of tunnels and canals that are closed because of the dispute? Can he give some reassurance to the House that the many people who take their holidays on the canals will be able to use most of them during the summer season?

Mr. Shore: I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are two aspects of the matter. One is the disruption to the canal system following the industrial action, which is most unusual in the canal industry, during the weeks over the Christmas period. That ended, I am glad to say, at the end of February. I understand that a great deal of work is being done. I hope that most of the

routine maintenance will be completed shortly. The second and longer-term problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the carrying out of the Fraenkel Committee's recommendations. We have that in hand.

Mr. Spearing: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's view that not only is the canal network part of the national heritage but that it fulfils an important drainage function? When he sees the chairman of the British Waterways Board, will he be able to give him more information on the programme for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation? Does he agree that what is proposed shows the enlightened view of Her Majesty's Government and that it is a good signpost for future policy?

Mr. Shore: Yes. I shall want to discuss those matters with the chairman. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the canals have many roles to fulfil. Undoubtedly, one is recreation. Another is the movement of water to different parts of the country. Thirdly, there is the freight function. I am glad to have been able to give the go-ahead to the first commercial development of any major kind in the canal system in the South Yorkshire canal.

Mr. Hal Miller: In view of the replies that the Secretary of State has given me about the lengths of canal that will be shut this summer, will he discuss with the chairman of the Board the position with regard to the mooring and navigation licences of those boats which will be unable to use the canals because they will be closed all summer? Will he also discuss the interests of commercial organisations which are unable to do business because of these closures?

Mr. Shore: Yes. I shall look into those questions. There have been some unfortunate tunnel collapses and they have to be dealt with in the most rapid way possible. I take a cautiously optimistic view. The situation looked much grimmer two months ago, and I believe that a good deal of the backlog can be cleared.

Rates

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give his forecast of the average domestic rate


demand per head for 1979–80 or, if that figure is not yet available, the average demand per head in the current year in Wales, in the shire counties and in the metropolitan areas of England.

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of average level of rate increases by non-metropolitan district authorities.

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of local government rate increases.

Mr. Shore: A full return of rates for 1979–80 has not yet been made to my Department. However, the latest estimate available to me of the average domestic rate demand per head, as opposed to the average domestic rate bill, for 1979–80 is: in Wales. £36·33: in non-metropolitan districts in the shire counties, £55·28; and in the metropolitan districts of England, £49·10.
The latest estimate available to me of the average increase in local government general rates in 1979–80, compared with 1978–79, is: in non-metropolitan districts in England, 13·66 per cent.; in Wales, 16·75 per cent.; and in England and Wales, as a whole, 13·24 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: Does not the situation reveal such a disparity that it suggests that major changes in local government finance will have to be introduced during the next two or three years? Further, does not that reply make it clear that the Conservative Party's reorganisation of local government in 1973 must be regarded as one of the major disasters of the twentieth century?

Mr. Shore: There are still quite important disparities in the rate burden in different parts of the country. To some extent, of course, we are seeking to change this through our use of the needs element in our annual rate support grant allocations. What my hon. Friend has said about the reorganisation of 1972 to 1974 is hardly a controversial matter in the House. I have not met anyone who believes that the 1972 solution was the correct one, and I am certain that the proposals that we have put forward for organic change will command the support of both sides of the House.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Secretary of State now appreciate that his forecast of single-figure rate increases can be joined with the forecast of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 8·4 per cent. inflation as outstanding examples of Socialist statistics? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that as long as he goes on assuming that expenditure is the best measure of need he will go on encouraging the extravagance of Socialist authorities, from which so many ratepayers are now suffering?

Mr. Shore: No, Sir, I do not. I think that expenditure across the country, and not confined to just a few authorities, is the only proxy for need that we can have. Any other method which sought to examine the individual budgets and requirements would lead the House, and any hon. Member who followed it, into a quagmire from which I do not believe there could be any escape. Therefore, I am not in any sense repentant about the method that we have used.
As to what the hon. Gentleman said about the rates, my answer is that the average domestic rate—which is not quite the question which I was asked, which was about the average rate previously—will, on the basis of more than 90 per cent. of the returns, turn out at about 18½ per cent. That is clearly well in excess of the single figure which I had hoped would be achieved.
That estimate was given to the House on the basis of the continued effect of counter-inflation policy, but the Opposition, more than any other group, destroyed that by their vote on 13 December. Secondly, it was based on assumptions about the pulling down of balances, which were at a very high level, which in fact local authorities have not done.

Mr. Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of Tory-controlled local authorities, including the Calderdale district council, are simultaneously substantially increasing rates and cutting services? Secondly, will my right hon. hon. Friend give his view on whether, after five years of studied silence, the Tory Party is likely to offer the electorate, as it did in 1974, the uncertain prospect that it will abolish rates if it is returned to power? What is the Tories' current policy on the rating system?

Mr. Shore: I am aware that some authorities have managed, as my hon. Friend said, both to increase rates and to cut services, but I do not believe that the cuts in services will be a general feature of local authority activity during this year.
My hon. Friend referred to the Opposition. This is probably a uniquely favourable occasion for them to make plain what they have in mind. Will they pursue a policy of abolishing domestic rates, which they have put forward so many times in the past—we are entiled to know—or have they other ways of raising revenue? For example, will they turn to a compulsory increase in rents, which is, of course, one way of reducing the rate burden?

Mr. Godber: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the real change in the rate burden arose from the act of his predecessor, Mr. Crosland, in switching a higher proportion of the rate burden from urban to rural areas, which the right hon. Gentleman has continued, and will he repent on this matter?

Mr. Shore: On this occasion, and unusually, I think that the right hon. Gentleman does not have the full facts. As the House well knows, the architect and author of the switch to this fairer system of regression analysis in determining the needs element was the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who, very late in the day, saw the wisdom of making this change and saw that the previous system discriminated harshly and unfairly against the cities, where the greatest needs existed.

Mr. Heseltine: As the Secretary of State has been discriminating in favour of the inner cities by adjusting the needs element of the RSG, how is it that the Labour-controlled London boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Lambeth and Southwark have raised their rates by 49 per cent., 39 per cent., 39 per cent., and 27 per cent., respectively? Is it the truth that because they are Labour-controlled boroughs they have very little interest in the level of domestic rates?

Mr. Shore: This can be argued both ways. I think the House will recognise that the boroughs which the hon. Gentleman has cited are, by any standard, among the dozen or so most hard-pressed

urban areas in the country. There is no question about that. It is not a matter for me, and I have never attempted either to condemn or to give my blessing to any particular local authority's rate increase. It is a matter for the authorities. That is for them to do and to justify to their electors. It would be an equally fair inference to draw from the hon. Gentleman's question that I have not moved the RSG sufficiently in favour of hard-pressed boroughs—rather the opposite.

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those Greater London boroughs which have conformed to the guidelines for rate increases for 1979–80 as laid down in his Department's circular 6/79.

Mr. Shore: The setting of rates is a matter for local decisions by elected members in the light of their assessment of local needs and circumstances. Of the 33 rating authorities in London, rate increases in seven—Bromley, City of London, Greenwich, Hammersmith, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster, are in single figures. One—Croydon—has yet to report, and the rest are in double figures.

Mr. Hunt: Is it not ironic that, with the sole exception of Greenwich, the London boroughs which the Minister mentioned as having met the Government's target, and which have managed to keep their percentage rate increases in single figures, are all Conservative controlled? Is not the clear message from that that Conservative government, both locally and nationally, means sound budgeting and real concern for the interests of ratepayers and taxpayers?

Mr. Shore: The answer is "Not necessarily so". There are many areas of the country of which one may legitimately say there is underspending, just as others may argue that there are areas in which there is too much expenditure, at least in the short-term. That is perfectly reasonable. This is a matter for local judgment. Before the hon. Gentleman is carried away with the enthusiasm of his own rhetoric, let me point out to him that there are two other authorities in the London area which I did not mention. One of them is the GLC, which levied a rate in double figures, the other is ILEA.


which is wholly Labour controlled and which achieved the distinction of a nil increase in the rates precept this year.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tories in temporary control of the London borough of Ealing have adhered strictly to the guidelines of Conservative Central Office and have achieved the ideals of that office by increasing rents and rates and running down services?

Mr. Shore: I am most disturbed to hear that the Conservative Central Office should seek to interfere with the affairs of any borough. I am sure that we shall hear a denial of that from the Opposition Front Bench—at least, I hope that we shall. In a number of outer London boroughs there have been sharp increases. Those took place under Conservative rule.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: What advice does the Minister have to give, for example, to the ratepayers of Camden, where the rates have gone up nearly 20 per cent. as a result of the local authority breaking the national negotiating machinery and paying NUPE every penny that it demanded? Will he suggest that that matter should be referred to the district auditor?

Mr. Shore: That is not a matter for me to decide. I emphasise my view that in the great range of negotiations with the unions the local authorities are well advised to adhere to the national agreements. There is a margin for local negotiations which it would be foolish to deny, but in general it is far better to stick to national negotiations.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Tory-controlled local authority in my area has been able to keep down the increase in rates solely because of the generous increase in rate support grant that it received from him?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of that. As my right hon. Friend knows, I live in his borough. I am also aware of some pretty sharp increases in rents that have taken place there.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the Minister aware that as five out of the six lowest increases are in Tory boroughs and four out of the four highest are in the Labour boroughs there is only one inescapable conclusion

to be drawn, and that is that the Labour Party is profligate with expenditure in the public sector?

Mr. Shore: The opposite explanation is that these areas, often with their large Labour majorities, constitute areas of the greatest need in the country and in our inner cities. That is the alternative, and probably the correct, explanation.
The hon. Gentleman should not become over-enthusiastic about this list. The City of London, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster—which account for nearly half the number—came under the special inner London arrangement, which resulted in them having a low domestic rent increase, although they still made their major contribution within the inner London distribution scheme out of their general excess rateable value.

Community Land Act

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Community Land Act.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): There has been a substantial increase in activity under the community land scheme during the last year—probably double that of 1977–78. The scheme is bringing land forward for housing development and is playing a useful part in our inner city and industrial development programmes.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Minister agree that in the first two years of its operation the scheme lost £32 million, that it required 151 Government circulars to administer it and that it disposed of only 180 acres of development land? Does he not conclude that this really must be one of the most obvious failures of the present Administration?

Mr. Freeson: I feel weary on behalf of the hon. Gentleman's constituents if that is the sort of stuff that he will be putting out to them. He knows sufficient—at least, he assures the House from time to time that he does—about the proper economic workings of business organisations and trading companies to realise that when looking at the values, disposals and income of a company one does not discount the assets of the company. That applies to the land scheme.
The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that in the first year or two of the scheme there was a low rate of disposal in relation to the rate of acquisition, which was also below the desired level. He will know, though, that when disposed of—disposal of them has started—those sites will provide profit, as some already are doing for Tory councils as much as for Labour councils, and that will be the future growth of the scheme.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Despite the doubling, does my right hon. Friend agree that in its early years the scheme has been a grave disappointment to those who—[Interruption.] Before Opposition Members cheer they should wait to hear the rest of my sentence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this disappointing performance is due entirely to attempts by Tory councils to sabotage the scheme?

Mr. Freeson: There are a number of reasons why, in the first two years of the scheme, the rates of success of acquisition of land and disposal of land for development have been below what was desired. One is that in the early days of the scheme it was inevitable that there would be a low rate of activity. A second reason is that during 1976 there was a genuine cutback of resources, which the Government had, unfortunately, to impose.
Thirdly, although a number of Tory councils—about half of all the authorities that have been participating in the scheme—have benefited, there is evidence that many of them, in certain parts of the country, are acting under guidance from regional offices of the Tory Party. They are refusing to apply the scheme to their advantage. I am aware of one or two areas where even Conservative councils are in rebellion against their Central Office directives.

Mr. Rossi: Does the Minister realise that we on the Conservative Benches despair of his salvation, realising that even at this eleventh hour he will not repent and confess that the Community Land Act has been the most ghastly bureaucratic and economic failure that any Government could possibly perpetrate? Will he be honest and admit that it will be with a sense of relief that he will see the abolition of this bureaucratic edifice by the next Administration?

Mr. Freeson: The answer is "No". The kind of adjectives—of which we have become weary—that come from the hon. Gentleman are far more ghastly than any opinions that he has about the operation of the scheme.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative-Ratepayers council at Clay Cross is trying to sell off the land and building known as the Clay Cross social centre before 24 May, the date when it will be kicked out? The council is trying to sell it for £50,000, but it will cost £200,000 to replace the building. The Labour councillors' request to know who is putting in the tender has been refused. The council is obviously selling the property to one of its friends. Will the Minister see to it that an investigation takes place before the poll on 24 May?

Mr. Freeson: I invite my hon. Friend to let me have more details, and if it is within my power to do so I shall make inquiries. What he has described is not a unique example of the conduct of some Tory councils, guided by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The hon. Gentleman believes that if assets are sold now to make a quick quid to keep the rates down in the current year that creates future benefits for ratepayers. The opposite is true. The so-called party of business men should know better.

Local Government (Policy-making)

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Government policy on the participation of unions in policy making and in the implementation of agreed policies in local government.

Mr. Shore: The accountability of local authorities to their electorates must not be eroded, but subject to this principle the Government believe that local government employees should be given all possible opportunities to contribute their views on matters affecting their legitimate interests.

Mr. Morris: Is the Secretary of State aware of the situation in the London borough of Islington? The Labour council proposed a rate increase of 40 per cent., the social democrats on the council proposed an increase of 32 per cent. and with the aid of one Conservative member that proposal was carried. Is the Minister aware that subsequently the NALGO


branch there refused to help produce the policies designed to implement that 32 per cent. rate increase? Is not that a gross intrusion into the responsibilities of a democratically-elected council?

Mr. Shore: I hesitate to pass judgment on that now. I shall certainly look further into this matter because I believe that the legitimate authority of local councils should prevail.

Oil Pollution

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if it remains his policy, in relation to oil pollution, that the polluter pays.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): Yes, Sir. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that it is our last day, but perhaps complimentary remarks from below the Gangway and across the Floor of the House can wait for just a few hours. I understand the endearment that exists, but it should wait until the hustings.

Mr. Adley: Leaving party politics aside for a moment, is the Minister satisfied that the oil companies are subject to sufficient scrutiny of their activities in relation to oil pollution, bearing in mind what is going on in the Shetlands? Does the Minister agree that the owner of the oil should be identified, partly if not wholly, as the polluter and as such should carry a major share not only for the cure of the oil pollution but for its prevention?

Mr. Howell: I listened with astonishment to the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman. I know that this is the day of atonement, as the hon. Gentleman said, but such a death-bed repentance is beyond my wildest dreams. Questions affecting the shipping activities of the oil companies which may cause pollution are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad to say that the oil industry has voluntarily developed the offshore pollution liability agreement under which local authorities may claim compensation for pollution damage and clearing-up costs arising from offshore oil exploration and production. In general, I agree with the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Fell: Does the Minister have any idea, so long after the "Eleni V" trouble, when Norfolk county council will get the money that it has claimed?

Mr. Howell: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I shall be glad to answer it in the next Parliament.

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on his policy towards the sale of council houses.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the steps he has taken so far to ensure that the basic housing stock of local councils is being preserved for rental to those people who need houses to rent.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the sale of council homes and flats by local authorities following his speech in the House on 5 April; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what represenetations he has received from councils in response to his circular on council house sales.

Mr. Shore: Since I prevented the sale of vacant and newly built council houses. I have received several representations expressing views both for and against the present policy. I am satisfied that my present policy is justified.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Secretary of State not yet aware that most people want to own their own homes? Is he aware that many council tenants cannot do that unless they are given every encouragement by the local authority and the Government? What will the Secretary of State do to help those council tenants who wish to buy their own houses when they are given the opportunity? Will he continue to be an impediment to their attempts to buy their own houses?

Mr. Shore: I am well aware of the wishes of many people to become owner-occupiers. I have implemented a range of measures since I have been Secretary


of State designed to assist and facilitate that, including providing help for first-time purchasers. Our wish to encourage owner-occupation is not at issue. I said in my redefinition of policy that sales to a sitting tenant of two years' standing can proceed.
In areas where there is a clear need for rented housing—usually new ones or houses with gardens—I am not prepared to accept that houses which become vacant should be allocated on the basis of whether a person can afford to buy them.

Mr. Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that Ashfield district council still refuses to sell houses to its tenants? Does he understand that these people regard these houses as their homes because they have lived in them since they were built? Why does the Labour Party continue to deny these people the opportunity to buy their homes, when the proceeds could be used to build much needed accommodation for the old and disabled?

Mr. Shore: With respect to the hon. Member, that is nonsense. Local councils, which are elected bodies and which have a duty to look after the housing needs of their areas, should decide broadly on these matters. Provided that they behave in a generally responsible manner, as most do, that is all right.
The hon. Member suggested that the effect of selling off council houses will be to release money so that councils can build new houses and meet housing needs in a more spacious and urgent way. That is contradicted by the facts. In nearly every case where there are large-scale and, in my view, irresponsible sales of council houses, local authorities cut back on their new house building programmes.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a deep worry in the country about the housing stock because of the threats made by the Tories? Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who have for generations struggled to achieve a housing stock for those who urgently need houses feel deeply threatened by the sale of council houses?

Mr. Shore: I understand the anxieties, but they must be put into perspective.

We are talking only of a minority of desirable council houses. The rest will not be sold, whatever the Opposition wish. Under the Tories' policy, people living in flats in the inner cities will find it increasingly difficult to find the houses with gardens which so many of them want when they have children. That would be the result of the Tories error of judgment. They would do better to turn their minds to the general improvement of local authority housing, as we propose in our new housing Bill, which will help millions of those council tenants who will not be able to take advantage of any kind of house sale policy.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the Secretary of State recognise the inconsistency between the policy of that great supporter of the Labour Party, the Royal Arsenal Co-operative Society, which is selling off homes on its estate, and Greenwich council, which is also a supporter of the Labour Party, but which refuses to do that?

Mr. Shore: I do not see any inconsistency. It may be entirely appropriate. It depends on the condition of stock and the policy which it believes to be right. It is wrong to think that the same rules and considerations should apply to a particular body as to local councils which have statutory duties.

Mr. Litterick: Is the Secretary of State aware of the satisfaction and pleasure in Birmingham at the announcement of his policy to restrict the sale of council houses to tenants of two-years standing? Is he aware that this is particularly so because of Birmingham council's decision to cut its expenditure on house building, house acquisitions and renovations to a sum which is far below the grant offered by the Government?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has made almost precisely the point that I made earlier. It is an extraordinary coincidence that those councils which are most vigorous in selling in an indiscriminate way are at the same time cutting back on new house building in areas of clear stress for rented accommodation.

Mr. McCrindle: Is not one of the reasons why purchasing one's council house is so attractive that the average price of ordinary owner occupier houses


has gone up considerably as a result of the intervention by the Secretary of State in lending by building societies?

Mr. Shore: We have exchanged views on this matter before. The movement in house prices under our so-called intervention in the building societies in the past five years is about one-quarter of what it was in the period 1970 to 1974, when the Conservative Government made no such attempt to intervene.

Mr. Rooker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Birmingham his policy of allowing tenants of two-years' standing to buy their council homes and preventing the sale of empty and void property is welcomed? Is he further aware that the Tory council is crookedly getting round that policy by leasing and licensing empty, void properties so that people can jump the queue and be allowed to buy the property after two years? Surely that is not the intention of his policy.

Mr. Shore: I deplore any attempt to evade the effects of the amendment to the general consent which I issued a short time ago. It must not be assumed that the devices—some of which I have had a chance to study—will stand up in a court of law if they are challenged.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Secretary of State aware that the blatant attempt by Left-wing Members to oppose the spread of wider home ownership in Birmingham will be much resented?

Mr. Shore: It is nothing at all to do with Left-wing Members. It has to do with responsible policy and meeting the needs of our people for decent homes.

Mr. Spriggs: What will it cost the occupant of a three-bedroomed council house to purchase it if he has been a tenant for the last two years and if the house was new when he took on the tenancy?

Mr. Shore: House prices vary from region to region. If I were to pluck a figure out of the air, I would say that it would cost about £8,000.

Mr. Heseltine: Does the Secretary of State understand that we regard his explanation of why his party is against the sale of council houses as nothing more than humbug? Does he understand that the only consequence of any scale

of the doctrinal opposition of the Labour Party to the sale of council houses is to deny to millions of British people the opportunity to share in the benefits that property ownership involves?
If people in the lower-value council houses do not want to buy their own homes, why was it so desirable for the Labour Party to give people in much the same value homes the opportunity to buy under the leasehold enfranchisement Act?

Mr. Shore: That is a different matter. I do not believe that people who are able to buy a leasehold house, which is nearly equivalent to owner-occupation, are necessarily in the same economic circumstances as those who rent council houses.
I must correct the hon. Member on two matters. First, I have not stopped the sale of council houses. I have stopped the sale of empty and newly built council houses which are available for rent. Secondly, what I have done enjoys the de facto support of the majority of Conservative councils which do not sell vacant houses, despite being urged to do so by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. I have not stopped the proper and responsible sale of council houses, but I have stopped the activities of those who have an ideological hatred of council house tenants.

Town and Country Planning Association (Report)

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the policy report of the Town and Country Planning Association on inner cities in connection with the revitalisation of rundown areas in cities such as parts of London; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy towards the policy report of the Town and Country Planning Association on inner cities in connection with the revitalisation of rundown areas in cities such as Birmingham; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Shore: The Government's policy towards inner city areas remains as set out in Cmnd. 6845 "Policy for the Inner Cities". The partnership and programme


authorities have made a good start in drawing up their programmes. The urban programme itself has been increased to over £125 million in 1979–80, and resources from main programmes are also being diverted in inner areas. Real progress is being made. The Town and Country Planning Association report makes a number of criticisms, many of which I do not accept. I am, however, always happy to examine constructive ideas for improving our policy and for making our cities places where people want to live.

Mr. Grant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report of the association expressed growing disquiet at the outcome of the Government's inner city policies? Does he accept that, in particular, it found increasing bureaucracy, waste of public money and failure to involve the private sector? What does he propose to do to rectify that manifest failure on the part of the Government?

Mr. Shore: I suspect that there is a sense of guilt in those who occupy the Opposition Benches when they direct their minds to the inner cities.

Mr. Grant: Answer the question.

Mr. Shore: Indeed I will. When the Government took office the so-called urban programme was running at about £22 million a year. It is running at £154 million this year. There has been a sevenfold increase in the amount of effort and money being directed to the programme in a period that is not easy for public expenditure. That is the difference in the measure of concern.
The TCPA report was well below the association's normal standards of thoroughness and competence. It sought to make a judgment about the partnership arrangements and the new inner city policy, the latter having been in effect for exactly 18 months.

Mr. Eyre: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he cannot brush aside the serious and relevant criticisms that have been made of Government policy? Is he not ashamed that the Government have broken the promises set out in the 1977 White Paper? Will he apologise to the great mass of people living in inner city areas throughout the country for the way in which the Government have let them down?

Mr. Shore: This is one of the most remarkable pieces of impertinence that I have ever heard. It comes from an hon. Member who represents a Tory neglected inner city area in Birmingham. His comment is extraordinary. I am almost speechless in the face of such impertinence. I am far from being ashamed. The effort that we have put into the inner city areas and the general acceptance in those areas of what we are doing gives me every hope that our action is right and will be increasingly successful.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is right to pay attention to rundown areas it is important to ensure that no more areas become rundown? Does he agree that an important contribution to stabilisation and conservation would be the funding of housing co-operatives to take over from failing private landlords? Is he likely to be able to make any helpful announcement in that respect? Will he bear in mind that many multiple landlords, such as the Church Commissioners, are not likely to part with their property voluntarily? Does he have some proposals to meet that possible difficulty?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to housing, which is one of the major factors in inner city areas, and the role of housing co-operatives in achieving improvements. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction has been in close touch with the housing corporations with a view to increasing the part that housing co-operatives may play.

Mr. Arthur Jones: As a member of the TCPA, I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman express criticism of its report. I look forward to hearing the substance of his criticism. I recognise that he has been seeking a different mechanism to help the inner city problem. This is by way of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is leaving us today, but he must still ask a question.

Mr. Jones: I have a series of questions, Mr. Speaker. I start with my first one. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only resources that the inner cities need? I recognise what he has done in terms of partnership agreements


Is that policy being effective? Is he satisfied with the progress being made in the London docklands? Is he looking for additional ways and means of offering help there, both financially and administratively?

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions. He asked in what way I was not satisfied with the TCPA report. I shall tell him. The association's remarks about the need for getting on with local plans and not waiting for structure plans are ones with which I entirely agree. That is exactly what we did, and it is exactly that power that the House enacted in the Inner Urban Areas Act only nine months ago.
The association does not seem to have read that measure. The report includes proposals for the institutions to redevelop inner areas. It is in favour of bringing in new town corporations. Talk about bureaucracy! New town corporations have their merits, but the association's proposal is not consistent with its objection to bureaucracy. Nor is it consistent with the idea of fostering democracy in the regeneration of inner areas.
In terms of resources, it does not seem as if the association has read the blue papers and the White Papers that set out what we are doing. In my view, the TCPA, for which I normally have some affection, has produced a singularly ill-founded and ill-judged report.
I am willing to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer to his question about the docklands. I was glad to announce a few weeks ago that we were to make available £70 million, £50 million as a guarantee of private capital for ventures in the docklands area and £20 million for expenditures under loans and grants.

Mr. Litterick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rundown areas of cities are not necessarily enclosed within the boundaries of partnership agreement areas? Will he have a chat with the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who has seen for himself the rundown and dilapidated condition of the part of Selly Oak which borders on the Bristol Road? Is he aware that the only improvements made in recent years in that area by the Conservative county council and the Conservative city council have been projects financed wholly by moneys provided by the Government?

Will he give the House an assurance that he will recognise the fact that there has been gross negligence, and undertake after the election to provide more positive support in areas, such as Selly Oak, which are outside partnership areas?

Mr. Shore: I assure my hon. Friend that inner city policy will continue to receive high priority and much ministerial effort as long as a Labour Government are in power. I have always understood the difficulty about drawing boundaries for partnership and programme areas. It is an extremely difficult problem. I have never taken the view that the boundaries that we have so far determined will necessarily be the end of the matter. We have to carry out reviews as we go along.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while there are great problems in the inner city areas, there are inner areas of boroughs and towns outside those areas that are not so designated but where substantial improvement needs to take place? Will he explain how that improvement can be carried out within towns in shire counties, bearing in mind that the present Socialist Administration have, unfortunately, severely reduced the allocation to shire counties by way of the rate support grant? Does he agree that in the areas about which I am concerned there are many houses worth improving? How can local authorities make awards to young married couples when their budgets have been reduced because of the reallocation of the rate support grant?

Mr. Shore: There are many ways in which major cities and towns in shire counties can be assisted. One method is to do precisely what I did this year, namely, to allocate directly the needs element of the rate support grant. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman viewed that policy wih some satisfaction. It undoubtedly helped the otherwise rather highly rated urban centres in the shire counties. A number of the major cities in the shire counties—three examples are Nottingham, Hull and Leicester—are programme authorities and are receiving special Government assistance to deal with their inner city problems. A number of other areas have become desigated districts within the Inner Urban Areas Act. They can exercise some of


the powers in the Act for the benefit of residents and employment.

Local Authorities (Direct Labour Organisations)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to avoid waste and excessive costs in local authority direct labour building organisations.

Mr. John Page: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that local authorities adopt improved accountancy management procedures in order to avoid losses and excessive costs in local authority direct labour building organisations and in related ancillary services such as architects and civil engineering departments.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will recommend improved accountancy and management procedures to local authorities in order to avoid losses and excessive costs in local authority direct labour building organisations.

Mr. Freeson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Tebbit: What an extraordinary answer. Is the Minister aware that his intentions about future legislation are now totally irrelevant? More to the point, will he say why he resisted the bringing forward of legislation to control the waste and inefficiency of direct labour organisations for so long, when his noble Friend representing the Government in the House of Lords welcomed and supported the private Member's Bill of my noble Friend, Lord Kinnoull?

Mr. Freeson: I shall not comment on the somewhat garbled reference to what happened in another place. It is sufficient for me to look after affairs within my area in this place, for the moment anyway.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We did not resist the measure. We drafted a Bill. We presented it. The Opposition—including the hon. Gentleman—opposed it, and because of our minority position as a Government we had to withdraw it.

Mr. Page: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friends and I, from the Government Back Benches, will press the Government after 15 May to reduce the

amount of work done by direct labour organisations and also the direct supply of architectural, surveying and other services?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman had better save his prejudiced pressures for his own Front Bench spokesmen for another occasion, under whatever circumstances. If the Opposition turn their attention to a large number of Conservative councils, they will meet some resistance to some of their prejudiced attitudes. There are 456 direct labour organisations in local government in England and Wales, a large number of which are run by Conservative councils.

Mr. Ridley: Is it not utterly cynical to decide to legislate to protect the interests of ratepayers after the time when legislation may conceivably be introduced by the Government, especially having wasted five years resisting the proposal? Will the Minister give us his pledge of support for this measure should be personally, by chance, be re-elected?

Mr. Freeson: I found it difficult to follow that somewhat circumlocutory question. The answer is that the hon. Gentleman, like his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), has got it wrong. The Government prepared a Bill to deal with those matters. It would have provided for proper and efficient accounting procedures. It would also have placed capital works projects by DLOs on virtually the same footing as that for private enterprise firms. In 1976 the Opposition prevented us from introducing that Bill. They, and not the Government, must carry the can for that.

Mr. Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that local authorities have sufficient protection against private enterprise organisations working for local authorities? Does he recall that Taylor "We built Ronan Point" Woodrow cost the nation about £40 million at current prices to restore the difficulties that arose from Ronan Point? Does he accept that Bradford, which is a Tory-controlled council, replaced the two shoddy private enterprise contractors in Keighley by a direct works department because it recognised that it would be more efficient and effective?

Mr. Freeson: It is right to place on record, as there is so much deliberate


misrepresentation on this matter by the Opposition and others, that time and time again the capital works departments or sections of DLOs around the country have to step into contracts to pick up the pieces left behind by the disasters of private enterprise.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Minister accept that he could very easily have got the Bill through the House had he restricted it to direct accounting procedures in local government? The Bill that he talked about was a comprehensive measure to extend the whole range of DLOs throughout the country. That was why, during the Lib-Lab pact, he could not get Opposition support for his Bill.

Mr. Freeson: I well understand why the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a very high regard, is feeling a little sensitive about this matter. He did not even read the Bill at the time, otherwise he would have known that it provided for the sort of thing that he wanted. Had he read the Bill and come to see us about it, he would have known that what we were seeking to do was to put DLOs on the same footing as equivalent private enterprise firms. The Opposition resisted the Bill and it was lost. When we come back to office we shall reintroduce it.

Mr. Heseltine: If I may be allowed to anticipate the inevitable events of the next few weeks, I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Page) that we shall take action in the next Government to deal with direct labour organisations.
Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that what he is saying to the House is inconsistent with the facts as the House knows them? He must remember that

the Bill that he wanted to introduce—as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) said—sought to extend the powers of the direct labour organisations. It was not simply to try to make them more efficient. Will the Minister remember that from this Dispatch Box I offered him every support in getting through a Bill to do what he said this afternoon he wanted to do? It was because that was not the purpose of the Bill that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to get it through this House.

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman had not even read the proposals that we had put forward. He was so full of his prejudices—as were other Members, including at that time Liberal Members—against DLOs that he, like them, did not even bother to find out what we were proposing. The Bill is in draft in the Department. [Interruption.] If we tear it up we shall destroy the very thing for which people are now asking. We introduced proposals in 1976, and Opposition Members, in an unholy alliance, resisted them. That is why we did not get the Bill which would have put things right.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Member, I shall take his point of order immediately after I have made the short statement that I wish to make to the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (TRIBUTES)

Mr. Speaker: As there is to be no Prorogation, I shall not have the opportunity to sit in the Lower Chair and to shake hands with right hon. and hon. Members at the close of this Parliament. I therefore take this opportunity to extend good wishes to those who are not seeking re-election to the House, to thank them all for their service in this House, and to wish them a happy retirement. They will always be proud to have served in this place.
I wish to place on record my deep gratitude to the Deputy Speakers, who have placed us all in their debt. The House will, I know, allow me to make personal reference to the fact that the First Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Second Deputy Speaker, who is also First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, are both retiring from the service of the House. They have earned the deep gratitude of the High Court of Parliament and will be sadly missed.
On behalf of the House, I wish to express sincere thanks to Sir Richard Barlas and his colleagues in the Clerk's Department, to Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Thorne, Serjeant at Arms, and his colleagues, to my Chaplain, the Rev. Canon Baker, and to the entire staff of the House, including the security staff, who have made it possible for us to function freely as Members of Parliament.
Finally, I express my personal gratitude to you all for the help that I have received ever since I was given your trust and elected Speaker. God bless you all.

Mr. Strauss: In response to what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you, on behalf of all those who are retiring—and, indeed, on behalf of all those who are not—for the magnificent way, with skill, patience, firmness and humour, in which you have conducted the affairs of the House during recent years.
It gives me particular pleasure to say that on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, because I moved you into the Chair by a motion that was enthusiastically supported by the whole House. I then expressed my confidence that you would

prove to be an admirable Speaker, fully maintaining the high standards of your distinguished predecessors.
We shall all leave the House with great regret and many memories. Among those memories will be gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, for your behaviour in the Chair, and particularly for the kindness that you have extended to all of us, and the way in which you have not only maintained but enhanced the prestige of the Chair in this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for all you have done.

THE HON. MEMBER FOR CHINGFORD

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wholeheartedly second the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), having been the beneficiary of many kindnesses at your hands, but are you aware that while my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) was asking a supplementary question the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said, in a voice sufficiently loud to be heard by many Labour Members, not once but three times, that he desired and sought to kill my hon. Friend by running him down with a motor vehicle? Since this is not the first time that the hon. Member for Chingford has given vent to his homicidal impulses, is it not time that he was instructed that such behaviour is not only disorderly but a disgrace to the House?

Mr. Tebbit: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is well known that from time to time there is bandiage across the Floor of the House from hon. Members below the Gangway on each side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Badinage"] Perhaps occasionally sticking plaster would be better. I agree that I said "bandiage across the Floor of the House"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow a Welshman to explain. The word is "badinage."

Mr. Tebbit: I went to school in Wales, Mr. Speaker, but I was not taught very much French. None of this is taken seriously by the participants, other than by one hon. Gentleman who seems to worry excessively about it. If it caused him any offence, I gladly withdraw any such remark that I made. Equally, if it caused any offence to the hon. Member


for Paddington (Mr. Latham), I do the same. But, as I said, Mr. Speaker, you know the sorts of remarks that pass between hon. Members. When somebody referred to the hon. Gentleman as a rundown Member, I certainly did say that it was perhaps overdue that he was run down, and that I would not mind doing it myself. For that remark, Mr. Speaker, I humbly apologise.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I merely wish to place on record my gratitude for the compliment paid to me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be only too delighted if my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) were run down by a car driven by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we move on to a Ten-Minute Bill, I should point out that although there is other business to be done we have ended the main part of the business. It is very interesting that the points of order came from where they did, because they were in harmony with the life of this Parliament.

BILL OF RIGHTS

3.40 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject.
It was only after considerable reflection, following the dramatic events in the House last Wednesday, that I decided to proceed to seek the approval of the House to introduce this Bill today, even though I am conscious that it can make little or no progress towards implementation in the lifetime of this Parliament. However, I finally decided to go ahead because I was allocated time for this Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule well before last week's events and therefore no question of a sudden propaganda exercise could possibly arise. Indeed, I am hopeful that what I propose, and the form in which I propose it, will receive the general approval of all parties in the House.
During the last two decades, while the increase of the power of the Executive under successive Governments has been steadily growing, there have been a number of attempts by Members of Parliament of different parties in both Houses of Parliament to review and maybe amend where necessary the old Bill of Rights 1688, but none has proved successful, for a variety of reasons. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) produced a Bill very similar to mine exactly 10 years ago. None of those attempts proved successful, partly because of lack of time and because some of the Bills were phrased in a contentious manner. It is not my purpose to be contentious today.
It has become all the more relevant in the post-war years, and all the more important to the ordinary subjects of this kingdom as time has gone on, that the individual rights of the subject should be clarified, brought up to date, and more fully understood than at present. It is not enough to reassert that within our unwritten constitution no such clarification is necessary. There is no convention that requires a Ten-Minute Bill to consume the full 10 minutes of parliamentary time. Therefore, because of the other outstanding business that is before the House, I shall keep my remarks as brief and uncontentious as possible.
There are, however, three arguments that I can quote, which I believe support my submission that the Act of 1688 needs to be reviewed, if only to remove uncertainties which exist in the mind of the public.
First, in recent years individual British subjects, in order to obtain their constitutional legal rights established on matters of great issue, have, on too many occasions—often at excessive expense to themselves—had to seek redress on these issues of principle up to the highest court in the land. This is an indication of the need for clarification in a number of areas.
Secondly, it is a known fact that the Ombudsman is increasingly approached by individuals, through their Members of Parliament, because they are dissatisfied with the grey areas—the present apparent uncertainties—of the legal situation affecting their constitutional rights.
Thirdly, and perhaps most telling of all, it is a fact that individual British subjects, unable to obtain the redress to which they are entitled within our present system of law, have felt impelled to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights under the terms of the relevant provisions of the European convention on human rights which the Government, with the consent of all parties, have rightly signed and ratified.
I shall quote only two instances, which are of a completely non-partisan nature. In February 1975 the European Court, in its first decision in an individual case involving Britain, found this country in breach of the convention in the Golder case, as it has become known, which involved a prisoner who was refused permission to consult a solicitor. In the result, the Home Secretary of the day, to his credit, undertook to amend prison rules in the light of the judgment of that court. As I say, this was to the credit of the then Home Secretary, but it remains a fact that the unfortunate Mr. Golder made his complaint in 1970 and only five years later, when he was no longer in prison, did he obtain a verdict favourable to his original plea for justice.
At this moment there is another case pending before the European Commission regarding the assertion of three railway men who claim, rightly or wrongly, that they were wrongly dismissed by

British Rail. By an odd quirk of fate, the verdict of the 16 jurists of the European Commission will be given on 3 May. Because this case is clearly sub judice, I shall not comment on it further apart from making the general observation that to me at least—and I think to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—it is repugnant that British subjects have to go abroad to seek redress that they are unable to obtain in the courts of this country, although the British Government have ratified the very convention on which they rely for their right to submit their cases to the European Court.
There are those who say that all that is needed to rectify this admittedly unsatisfactory situation is for the legal rights that have been endorsed in the European convention to be embodied in our own legal system by a specific piece of legislation limited to that end. There are others who believe that that would not be enough to meet our needs, including that distinguished jurist, Lord Scarman, who has put a powerful argument for a new constitutional settlement with entrenched provisions, including a Bill of Rights.
I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), the present Shadow Attorney-General, takes the view that more than a simple endorsement of the European convention on human rights is required, or at least that the Act of 1688 should be reviewed though not just in that limited context.
What are the objections? The first objection that has been made from time to time is that this is an attempt to bind a future Parliament. That is constitutional nonsense. There is no Act that could pass through this House that could not be repealed by another Act.
I close by pointing to the example of Canada, where a constitutional Bill of Rights was passed. It has been observed in the spirit and the letter, and no objection has been raised by any of the three parties in Canada—the Conservatives, Liberals or the equivalent of the Labour Party there—because they all realise that the same right exists to repeal that Act as to repeal any other Act.
I make this plea in the most amiable sense. I do not think that it would be a bad thing for anyone in the House, any


party or the reputation of Parliament as a whole if one of the last items of business that we considered before Dissolution showed our concern about the rights of the individual within the democratic way of life to which we all subscribe.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Percy Grieve, Mr. John Page, Mr. Paul Hawkins, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mrs. Jill Knight and Sir Frederic Bennett.

BILL OF RIGHTS

Sir Frederic Bennett, supported by Mr. Percy Grieve, Mr. John Page, Mr. Paul Hawkins, Mr. Toby Jessel and Mrs. Jill Knight, accordingly presented a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 138.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the First Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c, be discharged from considering—

(1) the draft Anglian Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979,
(2) the draft Northumbrian Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979,
(3) the draft Northt West Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979,
(4) the draft Severn-Trent Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979,
(5) the draft Southern Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979,
(6) the draft South West Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979,
(7) the draft Thames Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979,
(8) the draft Wessex Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, and
(9) the draft Yorkshire Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979.— [Mr. Shore.]

WATER AUTHORITIES (CONSTITUTION)

3.50 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I beg to move,
That the draft Anglian Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss the other water authority motions at the same time.

Mr. Howell: The reason for these draft orders is to try to tidy up some of the difficulties brought about by the creation of the Water Act and the desire of Labour Members to make water authorities as accountable as possible to the water users to whom they are responsible.
The great difficulty created by the Water Act 1973 was that it was not based on any known unit of democratic accountability. This was discussed at the time, and many of us drew attention to the dangers inherent in the administrative structure proposed for the water industry. For example, the Severn-Trent water authority starts at the Welsh boundary and goes right across the country, stretching to Lincolnshire and South Yorkshire. The same argument can be applied to the Anglian water authority and the Thames water authority. Of course, no unit of local or regional government has ever been conceived that has had to deal with such a situation, or accept responsibility for an organisation of that size and complexity.
In the Water Act, we managed to get agreement that at least half the members of water authorities should be elected from local authorities. I think that 51 per cent, of the membership of all water authorities is composed of local authority representatives. During the passage of the measure many of us predicted much of the troubles and financial difficulties that many of our citizens face, especially in large towns. For example, the citizens of Birmingham and many other large cities have in past years paid to provide an excellent and wholesome water supply, but, exactly as we predicted, they had to pay again, as a result of reorganisation,


to provide an excellent and wholesome water supply for the citizens of other parts of these tremendous regions who had not previously enjoyed such a facility. It was even worse on the drainage and sewerage side.
That is one of the reasons why cities now face considerably more than the average charges in most of these regional water authority areas. Even worse—we protested about this at the time—the great cities of England, which previously had their own water authorities, were denied even a single representative, as of right, on the water authority. For example, Birmingham never had a member, as of right, on the Severn-Trent water authority.
During the past five years, in the exercise of my stewardship, I attempted to right that situation by ensuring that in regard to ministerial nominations I would appoint somebody who represented each of the cities. However, that is totally unsatisfactory. These orders seek to go a tiny step in that direction, in that each of the major cities of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol will at last have at least one voice, as of right, on their appropriate regional water authority.
This is not much, but it acknowledges the importance of those cities within the water industry. We would have hoped to have agreement from both sides of the House to introduce our White Paper proposals, which attempted to eradicate some of the worst excesses of the system that we inherited when we came into office. As I have said, the proposed increases are modest. There are only 24 new seats altogether. We have consulted the water industries and the local authority associations. They have all agreed with the proposals and believe that they go some way towards removing the hardest grievances, so that most cities over a certain size will have at least one representative sitting on the water authorities.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is well known for his continuing criticisms of the Water Act and of the reorganisation of the whole of the water cycle, which followed our legislation in 1973. There is a certain inconsistency in much of what he said this

afternoon. Although these are minor measures, I do not think that they constitute a significant step towards a better and more effective recognition of the consumer interest. I recognise the importance of that. The Minister said that as an objective the consumer interest should be protected. I believe that there are more effective ways of doing so than is now suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman criticised the areas upon which the regional water authorities are organised. I know that he has consistently criticised this, but there is no suggestion in the Government's White Paper—Cmnd. 6876, of July 1977—that the present Government have any intention of altering the arrangements significantly. As I understand it, instead of leaving it on a regional basis, they propose that water should become a nationalised industry. However, that does not alter the regional organisation of the authorities based on river basins. Indeed, in paragraph 75 of the White Paper the Government say:
Integrated river basin management will remain, now and in the long term, the basis for regional organisation.
The right hon. Gentleman was critical of the Severn-Trent water authority, but that is in contradiction of what the White Paper says, because it goes on to state that
Although the existing regional structure is not immutable, the Government have no plans to change it substantially at this stage 
Therefore, I do not really follow the general criticism which the right hon. Gentleman continues to bring to bear. He is carping in his criticism. I have heard it on many occasions. As he has said, the interest of local government was recognised. It was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who was instrumental in ensuring a 51 per cent, representation by local government members on the regional water authorities. Indeed, paragraph 76 of the White Paper refers to
local accountability and the need to maintain links with local authorities in the provision of essential services to the community, and, on the other hand, the water authorities' regional and national role, with a stress on the importance of special skills in a major industry and the representation of a wide range of interests.
There we have the two factors that go into the make-up of the regional water


authority councils, namely, local government and those who bring special skills to this highly technical industry.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the large cities. For example, paragraph 78 of the White Paper states that
some major cities, including several with a long history of achievement in water services, are not directly represented on the water authorities.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do something about that in the statutory instruments, but they by no means serve the purpose that he sets out to achieve.
Only a few of the great cities will be represented. I am not sure about the criteria that have been used to decide which large cities and district councils shall be ensured representation. Some of them are named, and some of them are left, presumably to county councils, to determine. It will be interesting to know whether the criteria will be based on area, population, density of population or level of water charges. There is no fundamental purpose in the proposal.
The Government's intention has been criticised. In a document the Country Landowners' Association states that
the Water Act, 1973 placed express new duties on them "—
the regional water authorities—
including a water supply duty, a duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries, responsibility for supervising all land drainage matters, and a sewerage and sewage disposal duty which potentially conflicts with their pollution control duty. In this multi-functional role, the minority of members appointed by the Ministers play a part of special importance".
The memorandum goes on to say that
Local authority members are not required to have any relevant experience or expertise.
I am sure that local authority representatives who are appointed will have an interest in the work of regional water authorities. If that were not the case, it would be useless for them to appear on councils. We do not criticise the contribution of those with special knowledge. In another place Baroness David said that appointments on four regional water authorities arrangements have been made to represent consumer interests. On each regional water authority there should be

at least one representative of consumer interests. That would be a more positive approach to protect consumer interests instead of leaving it open-ended.
It has also been suggested that the ie-gional water authority should appoint, on the basis of a county, district council or group of district councils, a consumer committee to represent consumer interests and directly influence the policies of the regional water authority. Such an approach would be more constructive and would more effectively serve the right hon. Gentleman's purpose than these proposals. I do not criticise them, but I question what lies behind them. I believe that we should look for more effective solutions.
There is concern in local government about the non-accountability of regional water authorities. I recognise the concern of the Association of District Councils, and some of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will have come directly from its representations. Local government members are essentially fighting for their own corner, which is right and proper.
I hope that this short debate will point the way to more effective representation of consumer interests, which will not alter the purposes for which the statutory instruments are designed. If consumer interests could be more effectively recognised when making the appointments, it would be a useful addition.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not precisely follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) but I wish him a contented retirement. It is interesting to note that none of the Conservative Members responsible for inflicting the 1973 Act on this country is present in the Chamber.
There are two matters that seriously affect my constituency. On the Yorkshire order, the metropolitan district of Rother-ham that entirely covers my constituency may only have a representative one-third of the time, and its population is 250,000 and growing. Sheffield is guaranteed one member and may have another, and its population is 500,000 and shrinking. I do not wish to exacerbate local rivalries, but that arrangement is not satisfactory.
I am more seriously concerned with the Severn-Trent authority order. Thousands of my constituents pay water rates


to Severn-Trent. Because of the hydro-logical arrangements that govern water authority areas, they are situated in the Severn-Trent authority area. Schedule 2 contains no reference to the South Yorkshire metropolitan county or the Rother-ham metropolitan district. Approximately 50,000 of my constituents in the Rother-ham metropolitan district are within the Severn-Trent water authority area, and I am entitled to ask the Minister for an explanation and, if necessary, ask him to reintroduce the order after the general election with proper reference to the Rotherham area, and my constituency in particular.
On previous occasions in this House I have criticised the Severn-Trent authority, but it has much improved in recent years. It is too vague, and far too big, if part of Yorkshire, which is covered by the authority, is to be ignored. In Britain we need proper regionalisation, and the water function could be administered by those regions. The absence of reference to the county of South Yorkshire in the Severn-Trent order considerably strengthens that argument. I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure my 50,000 constituents who are involved before he departs this afternoon.
There is a further problem of the representation of many hundreds of thousands of people who are not connected to the main sewer. The hon. Member for Daventry referred to consumer interests. Many people have been placed at a dreadful disadvantage because of the muddle of the 1973 Act. Over the vcars my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department of the Environment have sought to ease the position and have produced a consultative document that may provide the basis for a decent administration in the future. A Bill has been prepared, and it would be interesting to hear my right hon. Friend's comments, but until we have a Bill the water authorities should have a representative to put forward those interests. Some people have properties which are not connected to main sewers and depend on cesspools. The majority of the population have main sewerage as of right. They give it little thought, and it is covered by normal rate contributions.
The hon. Member for Daventry did not refer to that aspect. The Conservative

Party is embarrassed by the fact that many hundreds of thousands of people in rural, and perhaps not so rural, Britain have that appalling disadvantage, and it showed little interest. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) learnt a great deal when he contested the Rother Valley constituency in 1970. He is one of the few Conservative Members who have shown any interest in the subject, despite that party's pretence at shouldering the burden of interest in rural Britain and its problems.
It is a serious problem for rural Britain, certainly for about 300 properties in my constituency. I am particularly keen to ensure that my constituency and those 300 homes not connected to main sewerage are not deliberately ignored in the order.
I confess that I was grateful to the Government when they sought to compensate for the appalling muddle that the authority inherited by removing value added tax from the charges that were levied on the unfortunate people whose homes were not connected to the main drains. The mere easement of VAT, which should never have been imposed in the first place—that was another result of the Conservative Government's activities—has not relieved us of the burden of ensuring that those people have a voice on the water authorities. They have to pay very heavily for the services that local authorities provide in association with the water authorities. I believe that their predicament is so serious that it must be resolved before the next Parliament is very old.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us that a decent Bill has been prepared and will be introduced before long. I hope that he will satisfy the metropolitan borough of Rotherham by assuring us that it will have reasonable representation on the Yorkshire water authority. Also, I hope that he will satisfy my 50,000 constituents who appear to have been ignored in the Severn-Trent order. I hope that their interests will be considered and that they will be able to put forward a nominee, despite the fact that there is no reference to it in the order.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I wish to intervene for only about two minutes. I welcome the orders, although


they do not appear to help my constituency very much. However, I gather that it has always been reckoned to be over-represented in that it already has two members on the Southern water authority. I gather that today's order will do something for Basingstoke and possibly East-leigh.
We are still not really tackling the problem of proper democratic representation on the regional water authorities. I accept that, as a result of the devolution Bills, the idea of some sort of regional structure in this country is probably out for the time being. Perhaps we shall have to build on the counties again.
I should like to put forward a suggestion which already exists on a very ad hoc basis. Representatives of the various regional water authorities come to the House about once a year and go to an upstairs Committee Room by courtesy of one Member of Parliament. If one is lucky, one gets an invitation, and for about 45 minutes one can ask questions. It is a pretty unsatisfactory process. The water authority representatives come well armed with all the answers. I do not think that it does much good.
For many years we have had in this House Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. Therefore, why can we not have regional committees of Members of Parliament, and write into legislation the provision that the water authorities must by law come to the House and answer the questions of those Members who represent their areas? In that way it will not be left to just one Member of Parliament, who happens to know the chairman of his local water authority, to arrange a visit. Every hon. Member whose constituency lies within a water authority area is entitled to be on the committee and cross-examine that authority's representatives on what has been done over the past three or four months.
Recently we have heard horrifying stories about some of the charges being levied by the water authorities, particularly on commercial interests. An abattoir in my constituency has gone bust, and I can well understand why. It was paying about £40 a day for drainage charges and a similar amount for water. These are matters that we would like to question more closely. Why is there a need

for such huge charges to be levied? I put these suggestions forward as an interim idea for getting more response to elected Members. At least let hon. Members of this House play a greater part.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I wish to pick out the statutory instrument dealing with the Yorkshire water authority. It ill behoves Conservatives to talk about consumer representatives when the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council has, for two years, deliberately refused the kind offer of the Department of the Environment to finance a consumer representative office in Keighley. All it had to do was find a building and the Department would have done the rest.
The reorganisation of 1973 was highly undemocratic. It was put through by the then Conservative Government. If consumer representation is a matter of such concern, one wonders why it was not raised in 1973. The fact is that once again the Conservative Party pushed through an undemocratic organisation without consumer representation and then discovered somewhat belatedly that consumers exist.
I am concerned that in the schedule the authorities of Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield have only two representatives between them on the Yorkshire water authority. But the order represents an improvement upon the very poor arrangements which the original order introduced when there was no representation from Bradford at all.
Bradford holds a particular place because it is the centre of the wool scouring industry and therefore it has particular effluent and discharge problems, which cause some concern. I would have thought that there was a case for some representation directly from Bradford in view of the city's importance to the centre of the West Riding worsted textile industry. It is a matter of considerable concern that the wool scouring industry faces increased charges. At present the National Water Council is considering the charges for industrial effluent with a view to calculating them on a new basis— on content rather than volume. This needs to be examined, and on that basis surely a representative from Bradford would play an important part in such a detailed technical matter.
As I have said, there are developments on the horizon in the wool scouring industry which might reduce charges by the Yorkshire water authority for the effluent. There is also the low-flow process, which is being installed now on an experimental basis in a Keighley firm, Sir James Hill and Sons Limited. However, it may be as long as two years before the process is brought to an operational stage. Therefore, interim measures must be examined carefully by the reconstituted body in order to ensure that the industry's suggestion that it might move to the coast is shelved, because the scouring industry provides many jobs.
Of course, the industry faces subsidised competition from France and I am sure that the Yorkshire water authority is well aware of this. This competition comes from the Roubaix-Tourcoing area, where the Agence du Bassin provides extensive subsidies to the French scouring industry. This places the British industry at a disadvantage. A working party examined this matter and reported that the French subsidy was about £750,000 a year. An important point is that this subsidy should be phased out by 1981. We are all members of the Common Market, but it seems that from time to time France does not quite play the role that the other EEC members expect of her. I am not convinced that the subsidies will be phased out, and I will not be so convinced until I have the evidence in front of me.
I am concerned about the position of Bradford and other parts of the Yorkshire water authority in relation to water supplies for first-time connections. Incredible though it may seem, only two and a half miles from the centre of Keighley, there are houses not connected to mains water supply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I allowed some latitude to a previous contributor to the debate when we got on to the subject of connections to water supply and other problems both of supply and drainage, interesting though they may be. However, we must relate this debate to the composition of the water authority concerned. I do not wish to be difficult, but we must obey the rules of the House.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you are absolutely right. I am arguing that these issues should

be raised by representatives from Bradford on the Yorkshire water authority. I said orginally that I was disappointed that in the schedule to the order Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield have only two representatives, whereas Leeds has a separate representative of its own.
I was seeking to point out that Bradford was an area with special problems which do not apply to Leeds. I mentioned the wool scouring industry, which is centred on Bradford. My remarks were fundamental and germane to the order. I argue that the order could be adapted and improved by the representation of Bradford on the Yorkshire water authority and by alteration to the first schedule.
In this context I argue that the first-time connection to mains supply is important. Membership of the Yorkshire water authority is very much related to this subject. That authority believes that it is the task of the district councils to provide financial assistance for first-time connection, but the district councils argue that it is the task of the Yorkshire water authority. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments as to how this conflict, which appears to be needlessly bureaucratic, will be resolved and how the interests of the district council, which in the case of Bradford appears to avoid any responsibility for assisting those who require first-time connection to the mains supply, will be reconciled with membership of the Yorkshire water authority.
In practice, this will mean that some of my constituents in a place called Higher Row, Keighley, have been waiting years to be connected to water supply. Elderly people in the area have to cross a road during drought periods to obtain water from the supply to a horse trough. This is happening in the twentieth century—a period when £600 million has been spent in developing Concorde and when one of our allies has put men on the moon. I am sure that all this activity is useful, but I do not see what advantage we have gained from that exercise, except possibly the advent of non-stick frying pans.
This is a deplorable situation, and I hope that the newly constituted Yorkshire water authority will ensure that it carries out its duties and produces a formula to solve this problem. I hope the authority


will ensure that my constituents and thousands of other people throughout Yorkshire will not be caught in a morass of bureaucratic indecision and will be provided with connection to water supply. This is not all that much to ask.
I hope that the discussion on this order will contribute in some small measure to the resolution of these issues and will improve the conditions of thousands of people. However, I have my reservations on this matter.
On 3 May the nation will be voting in a general election and at the same time the local elections are to be held. Many people have raised their eyebrows at this decision, as though it will produce great difficulties. However, I believe that there is no reason for not developing multi-elections of this nature. In future, why can we not elect representatives to the Yorkshire water authority and all the other water authorities, instead of having indirect appointees who are unknown to the local population and who are never seen by those whom they are supposed to serve? Two representatives are to serve an area with a population in excess of 1½ million. Their names are virtually unknown when appointed. Surely if the representatives of local water authorities and regional health authorities are elected they will have a direct connection with the people that they serve. People will know their names, because they will appear on the ballot paper.
I hope that this is the way in which the Labour Government will act. There is to be an experiment in multi-voting on 3 May. Let us continue that experiment in future and bring in multi-voting for some of these appointee bodies, which certainly need an infusion of democracy.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I do not want to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), but I hope that his local newspaper will keep a political balance following his intervention. I hope that his opponent will have an equal opportunity to give his views on water authorities, so that there will be a nice balance in the local press. I hope that his local newspaper will note my remarks.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) in seeking to give consumers greater opportunities to have their say about the activities of water authorities. It is all very well for Labour Members to knock consumer representation, but I remind them that I introduced a Ten Minute Bill to bring in a consumer council for water authorities. However, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) talked it out. He spoke violently against me because it happened to be the day on which the House was to debate Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman's idea was to prevent the Northern Ireland matter from being given a long debate. As a result, my Bill suffered. Let us be clear that it was Labour Members who prevented progress on my consumer Bill. That measure may or may not have become law, but I felt strongly enough about the matter to bring it before the House.
I had the honour some years ago to fight the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) in an election. We have exchanged views about water supply and I support all he said in his speech.
Let us have no hypocrisy about water authorities. It was entirely due to Labour Members that I was not given an opportunity to allow consumers to have a voice on those authorities. I am very much in favour of consumers having a voice on such bodies. They are large authorities. It was necessary to set them up because the sewerage system was falling into disrepair. Large capital sums must be raised to meet these bills, and it was necessary to have large authorities to fill that role.
My only grievance has always related to the method of charging. I am not against water authorities, but I am against the method of charging. If we had set up a water consumers' council, we might have had a better system of water charging. I intervene only to put that small grievance to the House by drawing attention to that lost opportunity, and also to support my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry in seeking better representation for consumers.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I wish to refer briefly to the order


referring to the Severn-Trent water authority. I, too, intend to be brief in my remarks.
The Severn-Trent water authority is probably the most despised and discredited public organisation in the eyes of the citizens of Birmingham. It is a profligate spender, there is no check upon it, and there is no effective democracy within it. It has offices galore and its members constantly vote expenditure for carpets and triple-glazing to be installed. I have corresponded with the Minister on some of these issues. At one time it purchased land from its own chairman. I am prepared to admit that there was no jiggery pokery or corruption in that matter. However, when there is no public accountability and a practice like that comes to light, hon. Members cannot raise matters of detail regarding water authorities. The members of the water authority are not elected and representative in the way that is set out in the order.
Those sorts of problem have arisen in the last five years since the Severn-Trent water authority came into being following the legislation of the previous Conservative Government. They have been sad years for the people in Birmingham. I am surprised that there are no Welsh nationalist Members here today. It is well known that for many years Birmingham had its own supply of water because our city forefathers had the foresight to build the dams and reservoirs in the valleys of Wales. The second largest city in the country took upon itself that responsibility. Since 1974, my constituents in Birmingham and others have had to pay to ensure that other parts of the West Midlands receive a water supply, having paid for their own water supply many years ago.
It is grossly unfair that the water rate in Birmingham city has increased by leaps and bounds but the service has been no better. Birmingham has forked out for areas such as Solihull which never took that responsibility—not just in water but in other matters as well. Local government reorganisation brought that to the fore. The citizens of Birmingham carried on their backs the people of Soli-hull and Sutton Coldfield, who took no responsibility for water supply and waste disposal.
The citizens of Birmingham have no voice on the water authority. Therefore,

I am pleased to see in the order that Birmingham is entitled as of right to one of the 48 seats. It is possible that Birmingham could be entitled to more than one seat. I hope that, when the metropolitan districts allocate their two seats between them, Birmingham will get an additional seat. The Birmingham ratepayers, having carried the other district authorities and ratepayers on their backs for the past few years, should have more than one voice in the new, reconstituted authority. When the West Midlands county council appoints its two members I hope that one of them—again—will be from the Birmingham city council. Therefore, Birmingham will receive three seats as of right in the new authority of 48 members.
I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that, even though the reconstituted authorities will give to the citizens of Birmingham a greater voice, because of the pressure the House puts on local councillors by setting up bodies like this to which local authorities can appoint representatives there will be a problem. Not all local councillors have an equal share of the burden of the work of their local authority. Those who are most active in pushing forward the needs and aspirations of their constituents become overloaded with work, like hon. Members. It is well known that the full-time Members of this House, who number about 250, carry the rest on their backs as far as membership of Committees is concerned.
The danger is that those appointed by the local authority in Birmingham will be those who carry a greater share of the burden. If that happens, they will not be able to give the full time attention that is required to watch Sir William Dugdale and his machinations in running the Severn-Trent water authority. I support the concept of direct elections to these public bodies because I see no way of reorganising the water system in a way that ignores geographical boundaries such as the water basins of our great rivers. The Severn-Trent authority is unusual because of the vast area that it covers. However, I accept that any other split would make no sense in terms of water management. I do not think that the Severn-Trent authority can be used as a basis for local government reorganisation. It could not be made the area of


a regional council, for example, because parts of Powys, Salop, Derbyshire, Hereford and Worcester and the great conurbation of Birmingham have nothing in common.
There is no reason why the membership of the Severn-Trent authority cannot become directly elected. I should like to see one to three people in Birmingham standing for elections to the water authority. That would be a marvellous concept in extending democracy. When the buck comes back to this House, there is no time within our procedures, either in the Chamber or in Standing Committee, to keep a watch on these public bodies. The Severn-Trent water authority is a public body which needs close inspection. In the last five years, since I have been in this House, I do not think that our procedures have been up to the mark.
I hope that, when the new Labour Government are formed after 3 May, my right hon. Friend will come forward with proposals for a fundamental reorganisation of the water authorities and the Water Act. It is no longer any good to say that the Tories brought in the Act—that was six years ago. We have been prevented from bringing forward proposals because of the minority position of the Labour Government and the problems of the minority parties.
During and after the election I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it abundantly clear that we shall put democracy into the water authorities. If it has to be done piecemeal, my candidate for making a start is the Severn-Trent water authority and its chairman. The post of chairman should be earned by election also. It is wrong that Sir William Dugdale is appointed by Government Ministers. I make no imputations about the motives of anyone, but I believe that chairmen—particularly Sir William Dugdale—should be elected by ratepayers. If that was the case with the Severn-Trent water authority, it would boot him out.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: In replying to the interesting and sometimes startling debate, I shall try to deal with all the points that have been raised. I should like to say to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones), who has been shadowing

for five years on this subject and who has crossed my path many times, that I wish him well on his retirement. He has always been an agreeable and fair opponent, and I thank him for his courtesy and understanding—although I have not always appreciated our1 disagreements. He has been of great assistance in considering water industry matters. I am sure that those in the industry as well as myself wish him well for the future.
The hon. Member for Daventry made some criticisms. He said that local authorities do not represent consumers. The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) made the same point. In a sense they are right, but, on the other hand, the elected councillors of local authorities are much more likely to be in touch with consumers than almost anyone else. I should like to see consumers' representatives on water authorities, but there are now four regional water authorities which have one of the Minister's nominees specifically appointed to look after consumer interests. It is our intention, as and when vacancies occur, to have such representatives in each water authority. I hope that the House never makes the mistake of confusing the consumer industry with representatives of consumers. I have never made that mistake. It is important to understand that distinction.
The water industry has not had a consumers' council in the classical sense of the gas and electricity industries. In the drought it was necessary for me to consult all sorts of representatives. I created my own consumers' council by asking representatives of the CBI, the TUC, the local authorities' associations, the National Farmers' Union and Mr. Michael Young, of the Consumer Council, to come together. We met once or twice a week, so that I could take urgent counsel with them and determine priorities during the drought.
That council worked extremely well. It was not a consumers' council in the traditional sense, but it included representatives of all strata of British public life. If we had had the opportunity to introduce legislation, I would have liked to make that sort of arrangement a permanent feature of the industry. Since those on that council represented structures of all the great organisations in this


country, it would have been an interesting way to proceed. I mention it in this valedictory speech only so that I or someone else can take it up in future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said, much needs to be done by way of organic change within the industry. We all agree that we cannot go back to square one and start from where we were before the reorganistation. The tremendous upheaval proved to be extremely expensive for ratepayers and serious action is needed.
The Minister of Agriculture and I chaired a working party for about 18 months because we were so concerned about the development of the water industry. The reorganised system had been in operation for only two years, but it was already causing considerable problems.
We produced a White Paper and hoped to be able to introduce legislation, which I would have regarded as important. That was during the time of the Lib-Lab pact but, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who was the Liberals' spokesman on the matters, could not agree that we ought to introduce the Bill. The only reason why it was not introduced is that we would not have been able to get it through the House and it would have been a waste of parliamentary time for us to try.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The Minister will accept that the two main points of controversy in the measure that he wished to bring forward were the takeovers of the private water companies and the British Waterways Board. Those were the matters on which we differed strongly.

Mr. Howell: I have always believed that the industry should not be out on a limb and outside a major industry. I believe that it will be at risk in that position. My proposals would have provided for its future. If the Conservatives are returned to power, with their policy of slashing public expenditure, the board will be an extremely vulnerable institution. I was trying to protect it. I have not been given enough credit for what I was trying to do, namely, to save the industry from that possible danger.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight claims that the White Paper was a

nationalisation solution. The trouble with the water industry is that the Tories do not know how to nationalise anything.

Mr. Russell Ken: They are short of practice.

Mr. Howell: Yes, and I am afraid that they will be rather rusty for a long time to come. They created 10 nationalised industries under their reorganisation. Each regional water authority is an independent nationalised body, and that makes nonsense in terms of the strategic planning that must take place for the long-term provision of our water supply, with the gigantic costs involved in reservoirs, and so on. The White Paper was an attempt to get central control and strategic planning which would have been economic and worth while.
The hon. Member for Daventry chided me a little for repeating my criticisms of the reorganisation carried out by the last Conservative Government, but my criticisms concern the structure of the industry and the almost impossible task, in terms of managerial functions, as well as democratic control, that the water industry had to face when it was reorganised. I do not criticise the performance of the industry. Bearing in mind all those difficulties, it has done extraordinarily well. That has been demonstrated during the drought and on the other occasions on which I have had cause to express my great appreciation of the industry's achievements. I take this opportunity to repeat that appreciation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) asked about charges for cesspool emptying. Our proposals fell because we were not able to introduce a Bill based on the White Paper. However, work on preparing the legislation is well advanced and we hope to bring it in after the election.
We proposed that householders should get a subsidy of 50 per cent, from the Government towards the expensive cost of emptying cesspools and that the water authorities should be obliged to carry out that service. That was a fair and reasonable compromise.
My hon. Friend also asked why his constituency was not included in the schedule outlining the representation on the Severn-Trent authority. The representation formula is complicated and


provides that where less than one-sixth of the population of a county is within a water authority area there should be no local authority representation. I am told that Rotherham has less than one-sixth of the population of South Yorkshire and therefore does not qualify under the formula, which was laid down in the Water Act 1973.

Mr. Hardy: I recognise that responsibility for this outrageous situation does not rest with my right hon. Friend. However, about 50,000 people in my constituency are the responsibility of the Severn-Trent authority and they have no representation on that body, either democratically elected or appointed. It is outrageous that South Yorkshire is utterly ignored. All sorts of authorities, some relatively new and inexperienced and a number very small, are mentioned in the order. When my right hon. Friend returns to office after the election, will he ensure that the interests of South Yorkshire are not grossly ignored, as they have been as a result of the activities of the last Conservative Government?

Mr. Howell: If the Government are returned to office with an overall majority, there are a number of matters that we shall look at. I assure my hon. Friend that his concern will be one.
The hon. Member for Daventry quoted the White Paper at me and used the phrase "at this time", or similar words. The White Paper was drafted in the light of the parliamentary situation with which we had to contend at that time. I do not think that we shall be able to depart much from it, but we shall look at it afresh if we have an overall majority in the House.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight kindly acknowledged the difficulties of the industry. The Liberals have always supported us in our criticisms of the Water Act. The hon. Gentleman talked about the need for regionalism. As I said in my opening speech, an industry established on the geographical and hydrological concept on which the water industry was established is bound to run into every conceivable problem of democratic accountability.
I put forward an alternative scheme when we were discussing the Water Act 1973. Unfortunately, I could not per-

suade Conservative Members, who were then in Government, to look at it. If anyone is interested, I will be glad to explain later what that scheme was. The more I think about it, the more wise I consider the scheme I put forward.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was a Minister, he and I were dealing with the problems of the wool scouring industry in Bradford. In my judgment, my hon. Friend, both in his ministerial capacity and also as a Member of Parliament for the area, showed a tremendous insight into these problems and took several initiatives. Regrettably, we have not been able to persuade the Yorkshire water authority to give the priority to the Bradford wool scouring industry which both he and I think it should have been given. Since my hon. Friend ceased to be a Minister, I have again seen the chairman of the water authority to express my view that it should give more attention to the wool industry in Yorkshire along the lines that my hon. Friend and I were jointly proposing.
I have not been able to persuade the water authority down that road. My hon. Friend's point that Bradford should be represented on the water authority as a right becomes extremely valid. This is not the case at present. There is a criterion that only cities with 500,000 population can be represented. I am afraid that Bradford fails under that criterion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley also talked about the first-time link-ups. If a local authority is prepared to requisition a link-up of houses for the first time, as it is entitled to do, the regional water authority has to provide the link-up. The local authority accepts some financial obligation and there is also a grant from my Department. The answer to this problem is for the local authority to requisition on the Yorkshire water authority. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is uncivilised and almost obscene these days for any household that wants to be linked to the water main system to be unable to have that facility.
I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is not too keen on the chairman of the Severn-Trent Water Authority. I would like to refer to the land question. I looked


into the matter and I was absolutely convinced that there was no irregularity of any sort. The proposal to buy the land had existed for a long time. It had to be bought because of flooding. There was a strong case for buying the land, whoever owned it. The purchase was necessary to enable proper drainage and flood work in that area. As one would expect, the chairman of that authority withdrew from the authority during the whole time that the question was under consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting—I do not think that he is—that there was any impropriety in that negotiation.

Mr. Rooker: No. Of course, I was not suggesting that. I made that clear in my speech. What stuck in people's gullets was the enormous increase in the value of the land because it was being purchased by the water authority. It was only scrubland, with a value of £1,500 an acre, yet it went up to £5,000 an acre. That made people angry, and rightly suspicious.

Mr. Howell: I can well understand that point. It is true. It applies every time any public authority wishes to take action. It is one of the arguments about betterment value and all sorts of other proposals. If my hon Friend is dealing with that point, I entirely agree with him. It is the community activity that enhances the value of such land, and the community has to pay through the nose for it That has always greatly concerned those on this side of the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take into account that one problem relating to water authorities is that 51 per cent, of all members are local authority members. When local authorities are Conservative-controlled, this has the effect of making almost every water authority in the country a Conservative-controlled authority. That point is not sufficiently understood. I have a lot of sympathy sometimes with the chairman of the Severn-Trent authority having to deal with that sort of membership, although he comes from no political stable himself. I will not go further except to say that I know he has considerable difficulties and that he does his best to overcome them.
I have redeemed my promise of giving Birmingham and the other great cities one seat. I still believe that is totally

inadequate. If there is one matter for which the last Conservative Government will be remembered for all time by the ratepayers and taxpayers, who are still suffering, it is the ludicrous reorganisation of local government and water and health services. I take Birmingham as an example. There was one set of clerks, one treasurer's department, one surveyor's department, one recreation department, each administering all these matters. Four bureaucracies are now foisted upon us for which we are having to pay. We had previously to pay for only one. I hope that electors in the Midlands will understand that the high cost of local government and water charges is the result of this bureaucracy for which they are having to pay.

Mr. Peter Emery: The Labour Government have had five years in which to change the system. They have not done so.

Mr. Howell: I have said many times at this Dispatch Box in the last five years that if the hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking to support such a proposal, we would have introduced it. I conclude on a non-controversial and realistic note. We now have four sets of bureaucracy in Birmingham—a county council, a district council, a water authority and a health authority—all of which have to be paid for and none as efficient overall as the old Birmingham county borough council. Let us hope that we can return to that efficiency. I regret that we cannot do so today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Anglian Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the remaining orders.

Resolved,
That the draft Northumbrian Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.
That the draft North West Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.


That the draft Severn-Trent Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.
That the draft Southern Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.
That the draft South West Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.
That the draft Thames Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.
That the draft Wessex Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.
That the draft Yorkshire Water Authority Constitution (Amendment) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 6 March, be approved.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

Orders of the Day — BANKING BILL

Lords amendments considered.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I understand that it may be convenient to put all the Lords amendments together. If any hon. Member desires to speak on any Lords amendment, perhaps he will signify his intention now, otherwise I shall take them in groups.

Mr. Peter Emery: I wish only to put a question to the Minister on one matter. I am happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendments should be taken together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Can the hon. Gentleman relate his question to an amendment?

Mr. Emery: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Which amendment?

Mr. Emery: Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 on clause 27.

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham): I should like to relate my remarks to amendment No. 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the agreement of the House, I will take Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 8 together.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 27

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM CONTRIBUTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 27, line 4, leave out
Subject to subsection (5) below".

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Derail Davies): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendment No. 10, in page 27, line 23, leave out from "order" to end of line 27.

Mr. Emery: I know that the Front Bench had arranged that all these amendments would be taken on the nod, but I wish to ask a question. I can understand why the usual channels wish to get on with the business. If so, they might consider taking statutory instruments at the proper time, at the end of the day, instead of putting them before the main business, which has happened today. The blame for any delay should be laid at their door.
The Minister will realise that one of the major factors in the Bill has been the position of the Giro. I do not wish to go over all the debates. The Minister will know that in another place the Giro was included as being covered by the deposit protection scheme. Now, because we have come to the general election and there is a general desire that the Bill—many aspects of which would have been brought forward by either a Conservative or a Socialist Government—should reach the statute book, certain arrangements have been agreed. Because of that, on Report in another place the Giro was again removed from the Bill.
I should like to put down a marker that I would hope that after the election, when the Minister finds himself on the Opposition Front Bench—probably with a much more senior job, although a shadow job, than that which he now holds, but with five years in which to learn how to deal with matters—we shall be able to ensure that, under the Bill, it will be within the powers of any Government, by order, to bring the Giro into the whole of the scheme. I have not always been backed by all of my hon. Friends in this matter, but I wish to see the Giro being successful. But in order to be a success it must meet all the requirements of any other bank within the community, and in order to do that it will have to have the particular protection—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman relate his remarks to the amendments, just for the sake of order?

Mr. Emery: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My remarks relate particularly to Lords amendment No. 9. In dealing with that, all that I wish to ask the Minister is whether I am right in believing that a Government of any party could

bring the Giro into the scheme by statutory instrument.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The Giro is excluded from the operations of the Bill, as it now stands, but there would be nothing to prevent any Minister in the future from bringing the Giro within the ambit of the Bill. Whichever Minister is in charge would be able to do that. The powers are not limited in any way. I think that I can meet the hon. Genleman's point fully.

Mr. Emery: Mr. Emery I thank the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Clause 36

RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF CERTAIN NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 39, line 26, leave out from "in" to "if" in line 28 and insert
a country or territory outside the United Kingdom of the name under which the institution carries on business in that country or territory".

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Moate: When I addressed hon. Members on Report in this Chamber, I declared that I had no interest in a bank. I said that with some sense of disappointment. I said that I was not a director of a bank and nor did I have any shareholding in a bank. This is the first and perhaps the only opportunity I shall have of correcting that statement. It transpires that the company of which I am a director has a sister company, which is a Swiss-based bank. Therefore, I have an indirect interest, although certainly no direct financial interest.
It soon became clear to me, however, that that particular bank, and a substantial number of other overseas-based banks with branches in the United Kingdom, would suffer detriment from the Bill in the form in which it left the House of Commons. The fact that that was not known to many of those institutions at the time of the Report stage and Third Reading in this House is some criticism of the speed with which the Bill was taken


at that stage. There had been very full consultations in the early stages, and I believe that many institutions felt that the Bill in that form was satisfactory. Amendments were moved in Committee, and then the matter was dealt with very rapidly on Report. It was only at a later stage that the full implications became clear.
I am not blaming the Government in this respect. However, it is something that happens too often. I believe that there should always be adequate time between stages of consideration to allow outside interests to enter into consultations on Bills in their amended form.
I do not in any way quarrel with the intentions of the amendment passed in Committee, moved by one of my hon. Friends and supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I think that they were endeavouring to correct what was a basic mistake in what is otherwise a very commendable and worthy Bill, and that was to try to place severe restrictions on the use of the name "bank" and banking names that have been hallowed by time and are used in the same sense throughout the world. It was, perhaps, an undesirable exercise in trying to adopt a too restrictive approach on banking names.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friends endeavoured to tidy that up, but it left many worthy institutions abroad in a very difficult situation. I am sure that the House will accept that there are some overseas institutions which, in a perfect world, we would not want to see operating in

Britain under the title of "bank", but the fact remains that many substantial banks of high standing and high reputation, many banks in the Third world in particular, would have found themselves being unable to retain the name "bank" in the title of their United Kingdom branch.
This provided a very difficult situation to be resolved in another place. I was particularly grateful for the understanding that my hon. Friends and the Minister of State gave to the position of these banks. The problem has been resolved by the amendment before us, and in a way which is certainly satisfactory to those banks. However, I do not think that anyone would claim that it is a totally satisfactory solution, because now we have many British financal institutions which are in a worse position than many overseas institutions but perhaps of comparable financial standing and reputation.
Therefore, perhaps we have not heard the last word on this problem. Nevertheless, in respect of the particular problem that arose in regard to a large number of substantial and reputable banks in Britain, this latest amendment resolves the position happily.
I should like to express my thanks to all those concerned who have resolved the difficulty in this way.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I should like to express my thanks, too.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 23 agreed to.

NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Clause 1

CONSTITUTION OF CENTRAL COUNCIL

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 4, leave out from "midwives" to end of line 5 and insert
health visitors or registered medical practitioners, or have such qualification and experience in education

5.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: This is an important amendment because it introduces the possibility of a doctor being appointed to the new council. We appreciate the purpose of the amendment but, in our view, this is very much a matter now on which the various nursing professions should advise. Therefore, we hope that the Secretary of State will not make appointments without first taking their advice.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: I am not entirely happy with this amendment, and in reading the reports of the debate in another place I find the arguments less than persuasive. The suggestion was made by the proposer of the amendment that the automatic right of doctors to be nominated to the council would not lead to their tending to dominate the proceedings. I feel that that is probably far from the case. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, who moved the amendment in another place, shot his own fox when he said that the nurses would need specialised medical advice because medicine was becoming more and more complex.
If a group of four doctors is the only group on the council to be able to offer such specialised advice, that could lead to doctors dominating the proceedings of the council. I and many nurses would fear that.
I wonder how the noble Lord, who I understand is a registered medical practitioner, would react if the Medical Act was amended to give nurses automatic rights of nomination to the General Medical Council. The members of the General Medical Council are nominated, without any preconditions, by Her Majesty on the advice of the Privy Council. By comparison, the proposed amendment is an entirely unsatisfactory way of tying down the structure of this new body.
When, in Committee, we were discussing the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and we were asking about one or two aspects of the make-up of the council, the Minister said:
If, however, that does not work out, there is provision for the appointment of people to the Central Council by my right hon. Friend, or by whatever machinery there is to ensure that there is a proper spread and proper representation of people who can teach health visiting, midwifery, general nursing and its various aspects."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 November 1978; c. 19.]
If the Minister did not want his hands tied in Committee on 28 November, he should not have his hands tied by this amendment. I find it unsatisfactory.

Mr. Moyle: My hands are not tied. The clause is purely permissive. It is not a very important amendment, and I am sorry to take issue in this matter. It merely clarifies the situation. Some noble Lords were suspicious. They thought that we might be able to appoint vets under the existing wording. We therefore changed it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF COUNCIL

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 34, at end insert:
( ) The powers of the Council shall include that of providing, in such manner as it thinks fit, advice for nurses, midwives and health visitors on standards of professional conduct.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This meets an undertaking I gave on Report that the Central Nursing Council would be able to give professional advice to nurses, health visitors and midwives.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 3, leave out line 8.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Dr. Vaughan: I think it fair to say that the Opposition take a great deal of the credit for the inclusion of district nurses in the consultations. We hope that the district nurses will appreciate that the Conservatives have consistently said that they should have proper representation in order to preserve their identity. This amendment will achieve that objective, and we welcome it.

Mr. Hodgson: I am delighted to see that this change has been made. In Standing Committee the Minister was kind enough to reply to a couple of interventions about the structure covering district nursing. It was clear to the Committee that there was an illogicality in the proposed structure.
When I pointed out this illogicality, the Minister said:
I sometimes wonder why I make speeches, because I seem to have to go over the same ground so often in order to hammer into the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) what is going on."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 December 1978; c. 275.]
I am glad that the Minister has now seen the illogicality of his position.

Mr. Moyle: I am having to go over again what I said in Committee. The district nurses wanted a standing committee of the Central Nursing Council and standing committees of the national boards. We therefore wrote that into the Bill. During the course of the Bill's passage they decided that they wanted a joint committee. We have now given them a joint committee of the central council and no committees of the national boards. I am sorry to have to repeat that to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

THE MIDWIFERY COMMITTEE

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 3, line 20, leave out from "midwives" to end of line 22.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Hodgson: I have a particular kite-rest in this amendment because it removes the amendment that I moved on Report earlier in the year. Once again, I find the arguments adduced in the other place not entirely convincing. There have been suggestions that this would cause a reduction in the majority of mid-wives on the midwifery committee because some midwives might be away on their professional duties. That is unconvincing. It was also suggested by Lord Briggs that the general public should not be involved. I find that unconvincing. There has been a suggestion that the Royal College of Midwives did not approve of this Bill prior to the passing of this amendment. That is also unconvincing.
A substantial minority of the profession are unhappy with the way in which their profession has carried the substance of the debate forward on this clause. They would be reassured if there was an opportunity for two members of the general public to participate in the operation of the midwifery committee. They have said many times that they are anxious because home confinements might be ruled out and that all confinements will take place in hospital.
It is this policy that a minority of the trained midwifery profession1 would like to see not pressed quite so hard. I hope that once again the Minister will see the force of this argument. The Royal College of Midwives has not carried all its members with it, and the result is that resistance to this amendment has been strongly urged upon me by many people outside.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 8

JOINT COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL AND BOARDS

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 6, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) The Council and each of the Boards shall consult the Joint Committee on all matters


relating to health visiting and shall not act on any such matters before receiving a recommendation of the Joint Committee which shall be made within such period of time as the Council or Board shall specify; and the Committee shall, on behalf of the Council or of any Board, discharge such of the functions of the Council or the Board as are assigned to it by the body otherwise charged with those functions, or by the Secretary of State by order.

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is the one great unresolved issue that the House bequeathed to the other place after the conclusion of the Third Reading in this place. The health visitors felt that their position should be more positively clarified in respect of the Central Nursing Council. I gave an undertaking that if the various bodies represented on the Briggs co-ordinating committee agreed a solution to that problem, I would ensure that it was written into the Bill.
During the passage of the Bill through the other place, various groups, and the Briggs co-ordinating committee, gathered one afternoon in my Department After discussion, they put a suggestion to me to which I agreed straight away. My noble Friend was able to move an amendment to put it into the Bill in the other place. It is a great tribute to the wisdom of all the bodies concerned that they were able to display great statesmanship and to negotiate, with give and take, before reaching an acceptable solution to the problem. I was only too happy to accept that solution. The Bill is now better than it was originally.
I commend Lords amendment No. 9 to the House with enthusiasm. I stress my gratitude to the sensible and statesmanlike attitude which has been maintained by the various members of the nursing professions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The improvement in the Bill also shows the value of the House of Lords and how a Labour Government make use of it. I have sat in the House for the last half hour and I have never known business speeded up so well or so many Lords amendments agreed by the Government and passed by the House.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: This is a most significant amendment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis).
We were anxious because the minority profession—the health visitors—was not fully safeguarded in the original Bill. We asked for further discussions and we therefore welcomed the amendment.
The amendment goes some way to strengthen the position of that profession. I join the Minister of State in paying tribute to the constructive way in which the health visitors, nurses and midwives have sought to produce the best compromise in a difficult Bill.
The House should take note of the way in which the health visitors have reiterated constantly their wish to co-operate with their bigger sisters, the nurses and mid-wives. We are grateful for the way in which we have been advised by those professions and for the help that we have been given with this complicated Bill.

Mr. Moyle: The only significant point that has been made in this short debate is that by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). I disagree with him. I believe that the existence of the other place prolonged the controversy. I am sure that if the professions had known that their chance of amending the Bill ended in the House of Commons they would have concentrated their minds even more wonderfully than they did.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: The Minister has just made one of the most outrageous statements that have been made in the House this Session. It was uncalled for and totally unjustified, and it cast a slur upon those people who have given of their time, effort, experience and expertise to improve a Bill. I take grave exception to the Minister's remarks. He said that there should be no secondary revising Chamber to improve upon legislation thrust upon us by the Government. It is a disgraceful, final valedictory address to make from the Government Front Bench.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 22 agreed to.

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 32, line 14, column 3, at the end insert "Schedules 1 and 4".

Mr. Moyle: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Dr. Vaughan: Hon. Members on both sides will have received representations in the last few days from the Central Midwives Board, the Health Visitors Association and the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors. Those bodies still have some reservations about the Bill. Our earnest hope is that once the Bill is passed it will be developed to the advantage of all three professions.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I apologise for arriving late. I have received representations. All the professions will be given through this machinery the chance to come together in a structure which gives them a better and larger say in their future. It is new ground and we are sensitive to that.
The professions have been too disparate in the past, and the change is bound to cause fear and nervousness. We all hope that the professions will make good use of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 24 agreed to.

ESTATE AGENTS BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I remind the House that there is a corrigendum—Lords amendment No. 49A—which was found to be missing on rechecking.

Clause 1

ESTATE AGENCY WORK

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 11, leave out "residential property" and insert "land".

5.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 12, 13, 17 to 20, 24 to 26 and 34 to 50, including amendment No. 49A.

Mr. Fraser: For 90 years the House has tried to put on the statute book a Bill to deal with estate agents. The House of Lords has made the Bill more comprehensive. If the Bill is helped in a final burst of speed to the finishing post I should be happy if the House took all the amendments together and agreed to them all.

Mr. Stephen Ross: These amendments achieve exactly what we hoped to achieve when the Bill was before the Commons. We wanted commercial and industrial property to be included. However, we were told by the Minister that such property was outside the scope of the measure and that this was consumer legislation only. Now the Bill covers a wider area and the House deserves an explanation.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) tabled' an amendment which was not selected because, according to our rules, it was out of order. Nevertheless, the Lords amendments cover all land transactions involving a capital value and business transactions when there is a transfer of goodwill. The Bill is now a more comprehensive measure and it goes beyond


the ambit of a consumer protection measure. I welcome the changes.

Mr. Michael Neubert: The conciliatory attitude displayed by the Minister to the Lords amendments should assure the Bill a speedy passage. We all welcome that—certainly those who have been engaged in both sessions on the Bill. We shall feel a weight lifted from our shoulders before very long.
The amendments, which substantially widen the scope of the Bill, demonstrate the value of a second Chamber and the dedication and diligence which the noble Lords have displayed in giving the Bill thorough scrutiny, a scrutiny which may have been extended were it not for the pressure of time during the past few days.
It was not our belief that the Bill should be widened to include all property. We recognise that primarily and essentially this is a consumer protection measure. We welcome it as such. My hon. Friends and I represent a party that is dedicated to home ownership. The Bill seeks to protect house purchasers at a stage when they are most vulnerable and inexperienced, and it should be appreciated by purchasers.
The professional institutions outside the House wanted the Bill to be extended to apply to all property. Those in another place have so amended the Bill. If the Minister of State is minded to accept the amendments in the present circumstances, we can do no better than agree with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 50 agreed to.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There are 65 clauses and five schedules in the Bill. I know that normally the House would take a day to debate it on Second Reading and would discuss it in some detail in Committee. I have been reminded by the usual channels that another place would like to receive it fairly early so that it may receive Royal Assent. I intend to be reasonably brief. We hope to complete the remaining stages fairly quickly.
The Bill is a long-awaited measure. It consolidates and amends legislation on ancient monuments that goes back to 1882. The principal Act dates from 1913. There has been subsequent amending legislation. The legislation is now fragmented and in need of modernisation.
The Bill is based on existing principles but brings their application up to date and makes them more effective. It also introduces new powers to meet situations unknown to earlier legislators, notably in respect of rescue archaeology. We believe that it strikes an acceptable balance between the need to preserve, or at least to record, our heritage and the requirements of developers, landowners, farmers, mineral operators and others whose business must inevitably involve a measure of archaeological damage. The Bill received a warm welcome on both sides of the Chamber in another place. Explanations and assurances given there and outside have resulted in the Bill coming to us substantially unamended.
Part I deals with the preservation of monuments. The main changes include the introduction of a consent procedure not unlike listed building consent for the present notification of proposed works to scheduled monuments. It will replace the rather cumbersome and unsatisfactory arrangements of interim preservation notices and preservation orders, the only means now available to stop someone wishing to carry out works that would


damage or destroy a scheduled monument.
Under the new consent procedures, special arrangements have been worked out with the National Farmers' Union and others in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to avoid interference with normal methods of cultivation wherever these would not damage a scheduled monument. There is also a wide power to enter into management arrangements in appropriate circumstances.
The preservation of ancient monuments has long been assisted by the giving of grants, and that will continue. Beyond that it has been necessary for the State or local authorities to assume responsibility for selected monuments by guardianship or by outright acquisition. There are now 839 monuments in State care under the present legislation. These arrangements will continue under the Bill, especially the arrangement of voluntary guardianship, which enables the State to maintain and manage a monument while leaving its ownership undisturbed. That arrangement will be retained.
The power of compulsory guardianship, however, has proved unsatisfactory. It will be replaced by a power of compulsory acquisition exercisable only by the Secretary of State. That procedure will never be used, except when it is the only way of securing the preservation of a monument. The compulsory power will extend to the acquisition of neighbouring management land in the interests of either the monument or the locality in which it is situated. The great increase in visitors to monuments makes it necesary to have that power available as a last resort.
Part II breaks new ground in the interests of rescue archaeology. It provides limited statutory opportunities for archaeological investigation, including excavation, in designated areas of archaeological importance prior to development or redevelopment. So far archaeologists have been dependent on the voluntary co-operation of developers. We shall expect them to continue in that way wherever possible. However, experience has shown that some developers will not give access to their sites even for observation. In other instances the opportunities proffered have been woefully inadequate,

so that vital knowledge of our past has been lost for ever.
Bearing in mind the increased pace and scale of modern development, some statutory safeguards are now needed. Archaeological areas will be designated selectively. They will not be entirely restricted to urban areas but they will be concentrated largely in the centres of the historic towns.
There will be a six-month period before a designation becomes effective to allow developers to take account of existing contracts. Once the designation is effective a developer could be subject to a maximum of six months' delay on a cleared site, of which four and a half months will be the maximum period allowed for excavation.
We take the view that wherever a site of high potential is thus to be developed in a manner which will destroy its archaeological value, it is right that the developer should allow an opportunity for rescue investigations and that he should not be paid compensation for that delay. In some countries a developer is required to meet the cost of the excavation. We do not propose to do that. Compensation will be payable for damage to the site resulting from the archaeologists' activities.
Exemptions will be granted to enable ordinary life to continue in designated areas. Beyond that, the Government have shown themselves ready to enter into special arrangements where these can be mutually beneficial. A code of practice, which we understand to be acceptable, is being negotiated with the Confederation of British Industry to cover operations for the extraction of minerals.
I shall not detail the House long on Part III, but some of the provisions may need some explanation. Clause 42 forbids the use of metal detectors without consent at protected monuments and archaeological sites. The need for that restriction, which is no more than a necessary extension of the powers and duties to protect our archaeological heritage, arises from the recent hobby of treasure hunting with the aid of electronic detectors. That may be an innocent past-time, but in irresponsible hands these devices can lead to irreparable damage and loss of knowledge.
Clause 53 takes power to schedule ancient monuments in territorial waters such as, for example, the Solent forts. Although this could extend to submerged wrecks, and there could exceptionally be a case where such action would be appropriate, the prime responsibility for historic wrecks rests with the Department of Trade under the 1973 Act. The designation of a wreck under that Act will take precedence. Archaeological areas will not be designated at sea. Although there is no statutory bar to expenditure of rescue archaeology funds on investigations at sea, I should make it clear that my Department has no present intention of taking on this responsibility, which may largely be controlled elsewhere and for which we do not have the necessary resources.
Clause 54 enables an archaeologist who has made a find in the course of a statutory investigation or inspection to retain it temporarily for conservation and recording, although the rights of the owner will not be permanently affected.
The Bill also provides the opportunity for some necessary historic buildings legislation to regularise the Government's contribution to the architectural heritage fund and to provide for the recovery of historic building grants in certain circumstances.
I should perhaps say a word about the ancient monuments boards of England, Scotland and Wales. First, I express the gratitude of the Government, and I am sure of the archaeological world, for the invaluable and independent advice of these bodies since their inception in 1913. Althtough the Bill makes clear that decisions affecting the rights of citizens must at the end of the day be made by a Minister answerable to Parliament, the rule of the ancient monuments boards is in no way diminished by this Bill. Clause 22 provides that they have a right to advise the Secretary of State about any of his functions under the Bill and specifically lists certain potentially sensitive issues on which their advice will be positively looked for. I may add that if the board asked to be consulted about every case in any of these categories, we should be happy to comply with that request. The boards' annual reports must be laid before Parliament. They are, of course, free to publish their advice on any particular matter at any time.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the financial effects of the Bill are likely to be insignificant, as much of it simply replaces one set of procedures for another.
Although the provisions in Part II are new, there has been considerable expenditure on rescue archaeology for many years. The Bill does not of itself affect the level of that expenditure. The financial implications of the Bill for local authorities, too, will also be minimal, although effective use of the proposed discretionary powers may in some cases be dependent on a limited increase in professional staff.
I make no apology for the fact that one of the last matters before this Parliament should be a measure about ancient monuments. The Bill makes better provision for preserving our past, or at least our knowledge of the past, for the future. I commend it warmly and ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the Minister and pay him a warm compliment. I think he presented one of the best Bills of this Parliament. Perhaps it is not altogether inappropriate that one of the Government's last actions should be to present the Ancient Monuments and Archeological Areas Bill. However, I shall not pursue that point.
It is sad—I am sure the Minister will agree—that this is almost our first debate on the heritage in this Parliament. I do not believe that we have our priorities entirely right in this matter. This is an admirable consolidation measure, which commends itself to everyone who has these matters close to his heart.
Concern has been expressed in some heritage quarters. This morning I spoke to the chairman of the Save Britain's Heritage campaign. He expressed concern about the effects of clause 14, which touches upon the termination of guardianship. It refers to monuments where guardianship is to be terminated. Subsection (3) (b) contains the words:
that it is no longer practicable to preserve it"—
that it, the monument—
(whether because of the cost of preserving it or otherwise).
Some of us are slightly concerned about the precise procedure to be


followed when termination is contemplated. I ask the Minister to give us an assurance on that point. If there were contention about termination of guardianship, which may lead to the destruction of a monument. I should like to think that there would always be public notice of the intention. The public notice should specify the proper time in which all interested parties may make their observations. If there is real anxiety voiced from many quarters, a public inquiry should be held. The Secretary of State should have power to deal with those matters. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government intend that that procedure will be followed if a monument is threatened.
The sense of the debate in the other place when this measure was discussed was that most designated areas would tend to be urban. Indeed, many would be urban areas. However, I should like an assurance from the Minister that designated areas may indeed be rural. I read the Bill in this way. I know that the Council for British Archaeology has a little anxiety on that point. I would welcome it being spelt out from the Dispatch Box that designated areas may be rural areas and that there is nothing to weight the Bill in favour of urban as against rural areas.
I now refer to the code to be worked out with the CBI. I am all for voluntary codes. I welcome the fact that the problem will be dealt with in that way. I stress that there is concern that the code should be stringent. We do not want valuable monuments and sites to be endangered because the code does not lay down a sufficiently stringent procedure.
This is a long and detailed measure. Many years of careful thought and study lie behind its production. It is admirable that we should end this Parliament with a Bill that is so well thought out and drawn up, and so non-contentious. In future it will be looked upon as a monument of legislation to preserve monuments. I am delighted that it was presented. I am glad that it was rescued when it appeared briefly in jeopardy last week after last Wednesday's vote.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I support the Bill. I declare an interest as I am a member of the inland waterways

amenities advisory council. It is perturbed about the descheduling of monuments along the canals.
Canals form a feature of the enjoyment of our leisure time. People going along the canals enjoy seeing the monuments. In some cases the monuments may be restored to decent condition and add to the amenities of the canals and the countryside. There is a fear that clause 4, which provides for descheduling, might lead to some of the buildings that were constructed for industrial purposes along the canals being thoughtlessly destroyed. We should like an undertaking that when a building is descheduled there is a chance of a public notification and, if controversial, that at least the ancient monuments boards should have a chance of considering the matter and making recommendations.
Although much of the legislation now on the statute book has been there for a long time, many of the scheduled buildings have disappeared without anybody being aware. We want to preserve our monuments. We want a satisfactory procedure through which the public and interested bodies may be informed when descheduling or the removal of protection of a building will take place, so that representations may be made to the relevant Government Department or Ministry, and so that if there is controversy about a monument, advice may be taken and, if necessary, an order brought before the House and discussed. Therefore, I should like to have some discussion about descheduling, how the Government look at the future of it and how it will work in practice.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The few hon. Members who have spoken seem to have been well briefed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because some of the points I intended to mention have already been raised.
I am particularly concerned with clause 1(6), in which, at line 35, there is reference to the
local authority in whose area the monument is situated, of the action taken
and so on. This reference to local authorities, parish councils, and so on, follows the point to which the Minister referred when he talked about consultation with the ancient monuments boards.
Local authorities and conservation bodies—there are some very able ones in this country—want to have prior information when a monument is to be excluded from the schedule or, conversely, when something is to be included. Although I accept that, according to the schedule, advertising is to take place in the usual way, I am not sure that this area is adequately covered by the Bill.
There is a parish council in my constituency whose chairman has personally undertaken the repair of an ancient monument. The monument concerned could very easily have been descheduled—£and no one would have known anything about it—if the chairman had not taken a personal interest in it, undertaking the mortaring of the stonework, and so on. This shows that in some instances parish councils are prepared to step in where Governments and other bodies are not prepared to do so.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) referred to clause 14. I have recent knowledge of a termination of guardianship at Appuldurcombe House on the Isle of Wight, which is related to the Worsley family. The Department of the Environment announced its intention of withdrawing the custodian. He happened to be a superb person who had taken a great interest in the house and created a great deal of public interest in visiting it. He was about to be withdrawn when the local authorities got together. I hope that, as a result of the consultations with the Department, his services will be retained by means of contributions from the local authorities. Clearly, then, there must be consultation in all these matters.
We have had representation from the Association of County Councils to the effect that there will be some financial implications for county councils. The association has noted the change in the wording of the introduction to the Bill. It is thought that this will cost county councils rather more than has been indicated, and the association is seeking some assurance that there will be compensation for them. I hope that the Minister will say something on that subject before we conclude the Second Reading debate.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Peter Brooke: So rapidly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, are events moving today that I owe an apology to the Minister for not being able to hear him make his speech at the outset of the debate. Obviously, I was aware of the spirit of the Bill and am strongly in favour of it, as have been the other hon. Members who have spoken.
The City of London is, I think, now the most important archaeological site in Europe, and therefore I declare a constituency interest in saying a few words about it. The movement of the Billingsgate market to the West India docks has involved a major archaeological development, and it could well take up to three years for the work to be fully done. It is not the market building which offers the opportunity, for obviously the deep-freeze arrangements and the basement arrangements have long since disturbed the archaeological sub-strata immediately beneath the buildings. But the lorry park, which adjoins the buildings, is a site of major importance, just as the whole of the bank of the Thames in the City of London has been in recent years.
We are lucky that, of the whole area of the City, about 25 per cent, has not been deep-basemented, and therefore the really exciting archaeological opportunities are still ahead of us. The archaeologists believe that, out of that 25 per cent., they will be able to piece together a very clear picture of the occupation of the City of London which has gone on for 2,000 years.
The unit that operates, under the City corporation, in terms of rescue archaeology in the City is the largest in the country. We are lucky that by chance it is led by a man who was a business man before he became an archaeologist. He has been extremely successful in working with individual developers in the City and in persuading them not only to delay the movement of their own plans but also to finance the archaeological work being done.
I pay tribute to the Department of the Environment for the massive assistance that it has given to the City corporation, and to the unit, in terms of the work that is being done. I am very much in favour of the Bill and of what the Department is doing in my constituency in support of this work.
I should like to say a brief word on behalf of the City of London branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The institution obviously made comments at the time of the consultative document which preceded the Bill. The City of London branch did not make representations, as the institution was itself already making them, although the branch obviously had the opportunity of seeing the institution's comments. The branch, which has about 1,600 members of the RICS, is inevitably one with a great deal of expertise in relation to the whole development area.
Before the Bill is enacted, I should like to record the fact that there is concern that the really extraordinarily amicable and co-operative relations that exist between the developers and the archaeologists might be disturbed by the introduction of statutory controls such as those which the Bill encompasses.
Secondly, there is concern because the monuments are not merely of national but of European importance. I said earlier that in my view it is the most important archaeological site in Europe. There is a feeling that, although compensation will be available in some circumstances, it will not be available in others. I wonder whether the question can be looked at, since these are sites and monuments of such importance. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether compensation might be available from the national Exchequer for the individual developer.
The third misgiving, which relates to the other activities of the City of London, is that the statutory delays, which are inherent in part II of the Bill, pose something of a threat to development within the City of London. Frequently, the client who is to be the end user of the development, which is being done by someone on an individual basis, is unhappy about the amount of delay that might be involved. The clients are often international organisations which have the option of going to Paris, Frankfurt or Brussels instead. Therefore, there is concern that the introduction of statutory delays may upset the process of development.
Those are, I believe, sensitive and informed comments from a particular area of expertise within my constituency. Having drawn attention to them, I repeat

that I am strongly in favour of the Bill. I am delighted that this Parliament should be seeking to enact it before we go our several ways.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: On behalf of the Opposition, I join in the warm welcome to the Bill expressed from the Opposition Benches. The Bill brings together a great deal of previous legislation in an increasingly important field of interest and endeavour. It is only by search and by inquiry that we can study the wealth of our heritage, and great steps have been accomplished in recent years in that respect. The subject is being continually investigated and new discoveries revealed.
The protection of our heritage is a subject which is of great interest. It is widely supported. The number of people who visit historic sites, historic houses and National Trust properties is a clear indication of the widespread interest on the part of our own people and visitors to this country.
I recently had the privilege of chairing one of the Select Committee inquiries into the national land fund. We warmly welcomed the Government's response. In their White Paper they accept many of the recommendations that were made by the Select Committee. In fact, the Government adopted the title that we proposed—"The National Heritage Fund".
It is a useful step forward that we should be able to provide facilities to discover and evaluate. These additional facilities should be provided for those who are interested and qualified to evaluate the nation's social, economic and cultural development over the last 2,000 years. I am sure that the Bill will be widely acclaimed not only in the House but also outside it.
I have no knowledge of the consultations that have taken place on this important subject, and I think it would be interesting if the Minister could give us some information about that. The question whether the Bill is applicable to rural as well as urban areas is important and is a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). The great problems of access and the costs of inquiry lie essentially in the urban areas


and city centres. I am sure that the House will take particular note of what my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said in that respect.
I was very interested to read a publication by the department of the City architect and planning officer for the City—Mr. E. D. Chandler—entitled "Archaeology—Background Study" published in February of last year. It made fascinating reading. It set out the hopes and objectives for the future. Paragraph 6.5 reads:
The archaeologists are seen not only to exist in the City, but also seen to be a competent, well-organised and established enterprise. They can with good will and well co-ordinated publicity be accepted by developers and not necessarily seen as a liability.
That emphasises the point that my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South made about the necessity for mutual regard and cooperation. Hitherto, I think that that point was well founded. It is a risk, I think, to put it in statutory terms, but I am sure that the subject will be treated sympathetically and that the excellent spirit of co-operation will continue.
I am particularly pleased that there will be some control over metal detectors, especially on designated sites, although I recognise that those using metal detectors elsewhere have made remarkable discoveries. I was reading in the newspaper only this evening that someone found treasure trove of a Roman paymaster which, in current terms, would be worth £¼ million. I believe there were 3½ cwt. of Roman coins. That shows what lies buried beneath our soil.

Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones). He has done so much in this area, but I am sure that he will agree with me when I say that there is a real worry about these metal detectors. One does not want to ban them, or stop people having them, but many inexperienced people can cause untold damage to priceless objects by the indiscriminate and careless use of them. This is something that we must constantly emphasise.

Mr. Jones: Yes. I gave my qualified blessing to sites that are designated. I said that in that sense I thought that

the terms of the Bill were quite correct. However, it is difficult to say that metal detectors should not be used elsewhere, because they have been instrumental in revealing sites that might not otherwise have come to our notice.
May I add one or two personal qualifications which stem from the same considerations raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South? It is clearly necessary that we should ensure a balance between archaeological interests, architectural interests—both in terms of restoration and redevelopment—and the protection of ancient monuments on the one hand, and on the other hand the rights of owners and developers.
I note particularly what was said in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Stedman, who made a particular point that the developer should not be paid anything in respect of delay. The Select Committee that I chaired also looked into planning delays, which are most material for developers, because the resource cost involved is sometimes very significant. This matter may require more definition, because my noble Friend the Baroness went on to say:
The archaeological excavation of a site sometimes makes the subsequent development works themselves more expensive. I believe this to be unusual but where the site is damaged in that way, compensation will be obtainable from the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 1979; Vol. 398, c. 460.]
I am not quite cletar what is involved in the statement of my noble Friend, but I have some figures here which indicate the cost of delay. I quote from the paper to which my hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South referred, prepared by the City branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It reads:
The effect upon development in terms of the loss that is created by the delay amounts to approximately 4 per cent in respect of a four and a half month delay and 5·3 per cent, on a six month delay. Also, the rental income that someone had been anticipating will be deferred for that period, and in terms of City development this is a substantial sum. In some ways the percentages could be considered as being very small, which they are in terms of the overall cost, but I do not believe in practice it will work in this way. I think that the fact of designation will result in the sites being down-valued by developers to a much greater extent because they just do not know what will happen if archaeologists start


to dig, and also they will not know whether an Ancient Monuments listing could be imposed once they start to dig.
Therefore there are qualifications in that respect. The paper goes on:
It would appear that no mention has been made in the consultative document nor in any of the debates in the Lords about the effect upon the development process and its cost. We believe that the consideration that has been given to the Bill has been focused on rural activities rather than business centres. Already within the urban areas there is considerable delay in the obtaining and implementation of planning consents and there is no doubt that this legislation will cause further problems and concern to owning companies and developers.
I have no knowledge of the consultations that have taken place, but from my reading of the debates I do not know what weight these considerations have been given in the Government's proposals. There is no doubt that substantially increased costs could arise and be of considerable significance.
The Bill, empowering the designation of areas of archaeological importance and the appointment of investigating authorities for these areas, is an important step forward in the research and discovery of our heritage. The powers will, I hope, be prudently used in the fulfilment of these desirable objectives.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Marks: I am grateful to the House for the support that it has given to the Bill. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said that we did not have many debates on the heritage. However, I have been kept up late quite often because we have had a number of debates, including one on Stonehenge, as well as several on the natural environment. I hope that there will be more interest in the House, and in the country as a whole, in regard to our natural environment and our building heritage, which has evolved over many years.
Clause 14 has perhaps created most concern, no doubt genuine, about the possible situation in which the Secretary of State might seek an agreement to terminate the guardianship in order to stop maintaining a monument. No such case is currently under consideration or is in sight. However, such a situation is conceivable, and we thought it right and proper to make provision for it. In prac-

tice, it would be most unlikely that a Secretary of State would persist with such a proposal if the ancient monuments board advised against it after full consideration and discussion. If such a situation were to arise, it would be unthinkable for the Secretary of State to seek to implement his proposal without making a prior public announcement and giving opportunities for representations by all concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) was rather worried about descheduling. Obviously, there may be times when an area of what is thought to be a monument could be scheduled. There have been examples where it is thought that a mound could be an ancient burial mound but is later discovered to be full of nineteenth century bricks. That is the kind of thing that is envisaged, but there would be no de-scheduling if a place kept the character that it had at the time of scheduling and was accepted as such.
Sometimes an ancient monument becomes a dwelling-house and is occupied, in which case it does not come under this category and can be dealt with in other ways.
The ancient monuments board has a specific right to advise on descheduling, and descheduling will never be used as a device to circumvent the need for an ancient monuments assent. I think that this will particularly apply to cases related to British waterways, which I think are the ones about which my hon. Friend was worried.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) talked about the need for close consultation with the local authorities. I hope that future Governments will do that in all cases, because it is inevitable. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the financial implications for county councils. This depends on how much they use their powers. Of course, some will use their powers more than others.
I can tell the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) that there has always been good co-operation within the City, and so far as I know there are no examples of developers objecting to the system on which this Bill has been based. The City of London branch of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors was among


those organisations consulted by their national organisations. I am afraid that I saw its rather lengthy document only this morning. I hope that consideration will not delay the Bill, but I shall examine what was said.
As to funds from the national Exchequer, as I said earlier, for six months there will be no compensation, but if a temple of Mithras is discovered in the middle of a development there will have to be consultations, and, I hope, agreement. A developer might even bring such a site into his development, and then there would be an acceptable case for compensation.
The Bill will apply to rural areas just as much as to urban areas. Obviously, the first sites that will be looked at will be those in the historical towns. I give the assurance that has been asked for.
As I said earlier, we must educate the public to take care to preserve these monuments and the countryside. We must also educate our children and their parents to look after them and not to leave litter about. During the coming summer I hope that there will be an improvement in the care of ancient monuments, not only by the Government but by the people themselves.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [30 March].

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the law relating to ancient monuments, it is ex-

pedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure of the Secretary of State under that Act;
(b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and
(c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Tinn.]

ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS BILL [Lords]

Postponed proceedings resumed.

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [30 March].

[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair].

Clauses 1 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Marks: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 59, line 10, leave out subsection (4).
This subsection was included in the Bill during its passage in the Lords, and is replaced by the money resolution.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 65, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill and the other two Bills on the Order Paper, the International Monetary Fund Bill and the Prosecution of Offences Bill, are consolidation Bills. They in no way alter the existing law. As this stands an outside chance of being the last opportunity for any consolidation Bills to be introduced in this Parliament, perhaps I can pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee and of the Law Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

DARLASTON (INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George: It is an honour for the Minister and me jointly to have the last words in this Parliament on that most important of subjects, my constituency. I wish to address the House of the subject of Darlaston, which is part of the Black Country, within the constituency of Walsall, South. I shall first consider Darlaston and then the problems of Walsall as a whole, because the problems of that small township cannot be considered apart from those of the metropoitan district of Walsall.
In 1972, when I first became a prospective candidate for Walsall, South, a walk around the centre of Darlaston revealed better than could thousands of brilliantly written words the downward spiral of the town, which is threatening to get out of hand. Dereliction and physical ugliness were abundant, industrial plant had seen better days, there was too much ancient and low-quality housing both municipal and private, and there were ghettos in the making. Employment prospects were falling, with the young voting with their feet. Public services almost daily were deserting the town. There were disenchantment, cynicism and a sense of resignation that little could or would be done.
It was not always like that. In the memories of the not-so-old there was a time


when the town had prosperity based on a sound economy. People remember with great affection the civic pride of bygone days. The history of the town goes back to the early mediaeval period. The town has since passed from hand to hand, until eventually annexed by Walsall in 1966. A board of surveyors held authority after 1846, when vestry government proved a disaster. The cholera epidemic of 1831 showed how inadequate parish government was for the area. In 1869 there was a local board, and at the end of the nineteenth century an urban district council that served the area well until local government reorganisation in the West Midlands in 1966. The high spot of the town's civic pride was in the period after the Second World War, and those days are remembered with great affection. Regrettably, many regard the annexation by Walsall as an unmitigated disaster.
The population grew throughout the nineteenth century, and the industry of the town developed to a considerable strength. The manufacture of industrial fasteners—the making of nuts and bolts—developed in Darlaston, which remains the centre of that industry. The legacy of history is strong in Darlaston. Many of the nineteenth century buildings remain, sometimes regrettably as a reminder of past glory, as many of these formerly fine buildings are in an advanced state of dereliction. Many people remember with nostalgia and sometimes incorrectly the situation prior to Walsall taking over the authority.
It is incontrovertible that there has been a decline. The reasons are many and debatable. To many people the decline dates from 1966. It is said that six votes out of 60 are totally inadequate to represent the town, although the councillors have worked hard on behalf of Darlaston. The decline of the town has also coincided with Britain's industrial decline. Darlaston mirrors that decline, with the added dimension of the industrial decline of the West Midlands.
The third reason for the decline was the laudable decision to create housing estates on the outskirts of Darlaston, at Moxley and Bentley. That removed from the town centre many people who would have had obligations to the town centre and spent money there. They can now shop in Wolverhampton or Walsall.
When I became a candidate, I spent a great deal of time dealing with the problems of the area. Considerable progress has been made, but the problems have not been solved by any stretch of the imagination. They are still enormous, but many successes have been achieved, partly as a result of my activity and that of the council, particularly in the mid-1970s, and partly because of the creation by the planning department of an area planning committee which gave the councillors and lay representatives a greater opportunity to participate in local decision-making.
The decision to bring ASDA to the town was mainly the responsibility of the area planning committee. I wrote to the managing director of ASDA in 1976 and pointed out that while the company could not be concerned primarily with regenerating inner city areas, if it could make a profit in Darlaston it would assist the town's reversal of fortunes, and attract other shops, people and industry to our town.
Many people have begun to take part in the regeneration of Darlaston, and a number of successes have been chalked up. Not least is the shopping centre. As recently as three years ago Darlaston was almost a ghost town, such was the state of dereliction in the centre. But with the emergence of ASDA and its super store, which the Minister visited in September, the town is being regenerated. Shortly there will be a second phase of the shopping development, with 19 new shops and the start of an open market with 35 units. Although the town centre is showing signs of regeneration, I urge the council to do more about the shops within its control, particularly in King Street. It has done very little about them so far, and I have had many complaints from Darlastonians.
This regeneration will bring back population into Darlaston. At present the population is declining and ageing. A survey of sixth-formers in Darlaston comprehensive school a few years ago showed that most of them wanted to get out of the town. That is a tragedy. I hope that the creation of a good shopping centre, the widening of entertainment and the improvement of housing will encourage young people to stay in the town. At present there is very little to retain them. There are the Regal for bingo, pubs and clubs but very little else. Fortunately, the town


hall is now being used for entertainment and pop concerts. A community association has just been formed as part of Darlaston comprehensive school, and this offers great prospects for greatly enhanced facilities. I was involved with others in a battle to stop the local authority from selling the GKN sports field, which is now the centre of the Darlaston community association, to an outside organisation. Had that occurred, it would have been a total disaster. I want to see better library facilities, better facilities for allotment holders and utilisation of the canal network for fishing, walking and other sporting activities.
We must attract people into the town, and if we are to do so the housing stock must be improved. At present it leaves a great deal to be desired. It never ceases to amaze me how many people come to my "surgeries" week after week needing housing repairs or somewhere to live. Most of them remain unsatisfied. The council's present housing policy is totally inadequate. I do not see how the 300 houses being built for rent each year will solve the town's problem, and more municipal houses must be built. A spur must be given to the depressed new private house market in an attempt to balance the social composition of the town. There are areas that are crying out for general improvement area or housing assistance area status, but the town's record of rehabilitation of older housing is lamentable. We must manage better the housing stock by encouraging a better transfer system so that people will move from larger to smaller properties if their family size has decreased. This will help to improve the housing situation and better utilise the existing stock.
The council house modernisation programme, although large by Walsall standards, as a result of the backlog of neglect has fallen behind, and much more must be done to improve the quality and management of modernisations. I have just submitted a report to the local authority based on my research into 40 local authorities and the management of their modernisation schemes, and in almost every case they do much better than Walsall.
I should like to see greater use made of the housing association movement. There are some excellent housing associa-

tions in the town such as the newly opened Hanover Court for the elderly, but the lack of co-operation between the council and the housing association movement is having disastrous consequences. The Housing Corporation has invested £17 million in Walsall, but because of the lack of co-operation from the council it looks as if expenditure this year will be no more than £3 million or £4 million, and that is to be greatly regretted. It is an opportunity missed.
The primacy of Darlaston's industry has been lost, but I hope that this is nothing more than a temporary phenomenon. Total employment has fallen from about 19,000 to 13,000 in the last five or six years and many companies are in great difficulty. The Under-Secretary of State for Industry visited the town recently and spoke to trade unionists. Although there are companies that are in difficulties there is a differential rate of decline, and there are some that are prospering, many of them with Government assistance. The reasons for the decline are the West Midlands dimension of our national decline, the over-concentration on heavy metal industries and the town's relationship with the British motor industry, which is not going through its most remarkable patch. The consequence of this is a diminution of employment. One must add to this the under-investment in some industries.
If one explored the profits made by these companies on a historic basis, one would see that if only a proportion of these profits had been reinvested in the town or in the industry, Darlaston would not be in the position that it is in today. Labour relations are very good. There have been few damaging disputes, and generally the work force is industrious, skilled and loyal.
I refer particularly to the fasteners industry which is located in my constituency with companies such as GKN, Rubery Owen Fasteners, Glynwed, Joseph Hampton and Charles Richards. This industry is in decline because of the importation of cheap fasteners from the Far East. We could be in the appalling position in the West Midlands of the motor industry, importing fasteners from the Far East when they could be made five or 10 miles up the road.
I am confident that the Government are making strong representations to the


EEC to change the so-called Davignon emergency steel crisis measures, as a result of which our European competitors get their raw materials of steel far more cheaply and are greatly undercutting us. I led a delegation to the Minister of State, Department of Industry. I have been promised that the Secretary of State for Trade will receive a deputation led by me consisting of both sides of the nuts and bolts industry and I believe that the campaign that we are mounting will help to resuscitate this important industry. The fasteners industry is quite literally the nuts and bolts of our economy. It once employed 40,000 people, but regrettably that figure has gone down to 36,000. I want to see this position reversed and this important industry revived. As a consequence, Darlaston will be revived.
But not all companies are experiencing difficulty. The Servis washing machine company, with its sophisticated products, is expanding, and Wilkins and Mitchell, which manufactures power presses, is doing very well. Eaton Axles, which was formed from part of Rubery Owen, has fine prospects. Although it has announced redundancies recently, F. H. Lloyd has a high investment programme and we hope that its position will improve. A number of other companies, such as LCP, which I visited recently, have undertaken major investment. I hope that all this will result in a stronger industrial base for the town.
Recently I visited the company of Wellman Cranes, which has had the benefit of temporary employment subsidy. This company manufactures heavy cranes. Two years ago it went through a period of severe difficulty and it threatened to lay off 200 members of its work force. It applied for temporary employment subsidy, and this was granted. The subsidy kept these people in work and as a result the company is now doing infinitely better. It hopes to receive a large order worth £2·5 million from the British Steel Corporation at Port Talbot. This illustration shows that Wellman Cranes needed temporary assistance and when that assistance was given the company was saved and went on to much greater prosperity.
There must be a resuscitation of industry in Darlaston, and this can come about partly as a result of Government measures to improve the economic environ-

ment. The Government have given a great deal of assistance to small firms and a great deal has been done by propping up British Leyland and helping Chrysler and Alfred Herbert. Many companies in my constituency are largely dependent on these industrial giants and manufacture components for them. If these went under, it would suck a lot of companies in my constituency under with them.
I hope that the town of Walsall will appoint an industrial development officer to attract industry to the town. I hope that the local authority will do far more than in the past to adopt an economic and industrial strategy. The Government are helping considerably in Darlaston and Walsall in an inner city construction package which is aimed at building small industrial units. In Darlaston enormous advantage has accrued from the Government's 100 per cent, grants and the derelict land clearance scheme. One must agree that considerable progress has been made in Darlaston. However, much more remains to be done. I hope that the Government commitment to assist the area, and Walsall in particular, in the past five years will continue.
One must see the problems of Darlaston not only from the perspective of the town itself but from the standpoint of Walsall. About 13 months ago the Minister and I spoke to each other following an Adjournment debate on the subject of Walsall. As a result of that debate the Minister visited the town and received a delegation led by me to his office. This had a significant impact on our local community. For a number of years, in raising individual isses I had tried to pinpoint the deficiencies of the town. In July 1977 the chamber of commerce and the trades council and myself launched what was called the Walsall regeneration campaign. Its purpose was to reverse the decline in manufacturing in the town and to adopt a more positive and imaginative approach.
That campaign did not really get off the ground, and the great leap forward took place only when the Walsall Observer, a campaigning newspaper, embarked on its "Wake up Walsall" campaign in February of last year. The first issue of that newspaper on that campaign is something of a collector's item. The newspaper, in parallel with my activities, sought to show that the town centre had


declined. In a front-page editorial that newspaper, dealing with the town centre, said:
It is a shameful story of neglect and indecision that has brought the town to its knees. A town that now needs propping up to stop it falling into a morass of anonymity. It is not easy to write such words about something held near and dear to the hearts of so many people. But the Observer would be failing in its duty if it did not.
The editorial continued:
While surrounding areas have pushed ahead with progressive town centre redevelopments, Walsall has paused, hesitated and finally floundered. Swift, decisive action is needed to stop the rot. Whether Walsall strides purposefully into the 1980s—just 23 months away—or remains sleeping in the 1950s, is in the balance.
As a result of that campaign, in which I played a part, there has been a tremendous alteration in attitudes. The campaign was a catalyst for public discontent, and it has put great pressure on the decision makers, who hitherto have been pretty lethargic. Following the campaign, Government Departments have been made more aware of the problems of the town. I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for his great interest in the town, for receiving delegations and for visiting the town. It can truly be said that 1978 was the year in which the town woke up.
There has been considerable progress in the town on many fronts, and it is on the point of adopting an industrial strategy. I am pleased that there is liaison with the chamber of commerce and, to a lesser extent, with the trades council. I am also pleased that the money invested by central Government in the city construction package is starting to pay dividends. One unit in my constituency, in North Street, will soon open and all the sites have been let. I should like to say how pleased I am that the Department of Industry is helping to organise a conference on microprocessors following a suggestion which I made at the West Midlands college this month. This could be of great advantage to local industry and lots of cash is available if Walsall industry is prepared to take advantage of it.
The leather and fastener industries are experiencing difficulties. But what the Government have done through their various schemes under the Industry Acts,

through the Manpower Services Commission, youth employment schemes, and temporary employment subsidy will help the town—a town which has been going through an appallingly difficult period—to survive. A great deal of credit is due to the various Government Departments for the aid which they have facilitated.
I am pleased that the extension to our hospital will shortly be commenced, with a starting date this year. People should recognise that that has arisen as a result of local campaigning. Because the Government adopted the RAWP principles, money has come from other areas. Walsall has been neglected in the past in terms of health provision. The new hospital extension will cost over £6·5 million. The Government have done so much, yet we in Walsall have not always responded to Government initiatives. I regret that the council's policy on housing is totally inadequate. I hope that the Minister will comment on the fact that year after year we appear to be turning away money that could be used to help improve our council house stock. This is such a waste.
I am glad that the Government have given 100 per cent, assistance for the derelict land clearance scheme. I hope that that money will be put to very good use. The town centre is now beginning to show signs of improvement following the £6½ million Viking shopping centre, the Tesco scheme, which is just beginning at the George Hotel, and the Co-op scheme, which involves building near the town centre. Therefore, the shopping centre, which has long been neglected, could become a thriving area. This will stop people going away from the town and act as a magnet to those outside the town who will want to shop in our area.
I am pleased to put these matters on record. The Government have taken many other steps, and I hope that the Minister will comment upon them. As a result of the campaign in the last year to draw public attention to the needs and deficiencies of the town, the campaign to get local decision makers to sit up and take notice and to arrest the town's decline is beginning to pay off. We must keep up the pressure.
Recently I came across a reference in a history book in which Birmingham was


described as "a little hamlet near Walsall". I cannot imagine that the roles will be completely reversed, but I should like to see to it that Walsall, which has a third division football club, will not for ever remain a town with third division status.
As a result of a great deal of activity by the Government, greater enthusiasm by local decision makers and continued public agitation, we hope that Walsall will be a town of which we can be proud, a town that will take us into the twenty-first century with greater confidence than we have experienced hitherto.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I wish to intervene briefly because at one stage in my career I very much hoped to be the Conservative candidate for Walsall, South. However, the Conservatives in the constituency decided otherwise.
I have a deep affection for the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), not least because I remember vividly Sir Harry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, who for so long represented the constituency with such distinction. I wish to reiterate the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and to express my continuing concern not only for the problems of Walsall but the particular problems of Darlaston.
I must underline the fact that the hon. Gentleman during a difficult period represented two constituencies, and did so with great dedication and skill. The people of Walsall, and indeed the House as a whole, owe him a great debt of gratitude. As we enter into the inevitable hostilities of a general election—and even though I hope that there will be a change in the representation of the hon. Gentleman's division following the election—I emphasise that we must all be grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We are not ashamed to recognise that debt, to wish him well and to thank him for what he has done for his constituency.

6.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on obtaining the final debate of this Parliament. I thank him for giving me the chance to have the last word in this Parliament.
I listened to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. As he said, I have visited Walsall on a number of occasions, most recently last September, and I appreciate the problems that it faces and the way in which its people are facing them.
In this context it gave me great pleasure recently to be able to congratulate Mr Andrew Cooper of the Walsall Observer, who won the young journalist of the year award for a lively series of articles on the current issues facing the town.
I want to make some general points before I go on to deal with specific issues. First, let me pay tribute to the hard and effective work that my hon. Friend has put in since he became a candidate for Walsall and was elected in 1974.
I shall describe to the House a large number of ways in which central Government is helping the borough. They are impressive and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South has played a large part in making sure that Walsall gets its share of national help. He can take much credit for what Walsall has gained.
I should like to make another preliminary point. We are doing a great deal to help Walsall from central Government. However, most of the work must be done locally. Central Government can best help those who help themselves. My Department's circular 71/77, "Local Authorities and the Industrial Strategy ", emphasised the role that authorities can play in promoting and helping industry in their areas. I know that Walsall council is in close contact with its industry and that its members are considering the appointment of an industrial development officer. Good for them—the more they do the better, as far as I am concerned.
In his speech, my hon. Friend encapsulated, in a sense, the industrial history of Darlaston, the West Midlands and, indeed, our national economy. Many of our industrial areas have grown haphazardly over the past 300 years, extending over wide areas, and incidentally providing prosperity both for the West Midlands and the nation, before the advent of modern legislation and town planning practice. Even at the height of this prosperity, severe problems of poor housing, air and water pollution and derelict land existed in the Black Country. Those


problems present a challenge which we are overcoming as fast as resources permit.
To add to those problems, however, industry in Walsall and the rest of the West Midlands has had to come to grips with changing world markets and new structures of industrial demand. The Black Country grew up with the metal manufacturing, finishing and processing trades. It successfully mastered the transition from the product ranges of nineteenth century technology to those of the motor car age. Now, like the rest of British industry, it must face up to increasing international competition for its existing products and meet the challenge of the microprocessor age.
I am confident that industry in Walsall is resilient enough to face up to and succeed in that challenge. There are stresses in any process of adapting to structural economic changes and the present Government have been keenly aware of what needs to be done to help British industry in that respect.
Let me detail the measures that we have taken. First, we took measures of direct support to local firms in Walsall, as part of the Government's industrial strategy to help them modernise and meet the rigours of international competition. Under section 8 of the Industry Act, selective financial assistance has been made available to 47 projects from firms in the Walsall travel-to-work area, involving assistance of almost £5·2 million, which will generate investment of £27·5 million. During the past 15 months, 64 industrial development certificates have been approved in the Walsall travel-to-work area. That represents 1·2 million square feet and it involves a gain of 1,850 jobs. No industrial development certificates have been refused in the Walsall area since this Government took office in 1974.
In his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the problems being faced by the industrial fasteners industry. He will appreciate that the issues involved are highly technical and more appropriate to be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The industry has already supplied a great deal of evidence to support its case for action by the Government and it is intending to supply more. That will enable the

Government to approach the European Commission as a matter of urgency in order to explain the situation which the industry faces.
The second category of measures taken by this Government has been the policy of support for crucially important national industries, which has directly maintained jobs in Walsall and the rest of the West Midlands. The support of British Leyland's future by the National Enterprise Board has been of major significance to the motor component firms in the Walsall area, as has been the Government's action in retaining Chrysler operation in this country. Support given to the long-term investment programmes of Britsh Steel, the National Coal Board and other nationalised undertakings has benefited and will continue to benefit West Midlands firms which supply plant, machinery and sub-contract work. I know that people in Walsall are worried about the threat to the leather industry. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has written to the EEC to press for restrictions on the export of hides to non-EEC countries. That is important—the Government intend to push it hard.
Thirdly, the Government have mounted a major series of special measures through the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission to sustain employment and enable Walsall's industry to draw on a supply of trained and skilled manpower. In addition to the work of the employment services and training services divisions of the Manpower Services Commission, the youth opportunities programme now encompasses more than 400 current schemes which offer 900 places at any one time for young people in Walsall to get started in the working world.
Almost 3,800 people in Walsall metropolitan district have benefited to date from the temporary employment subsidy. The scheme has allowed firms to get together a skilled work force during periods of temporary difficulty and thus be in a position to compete effectively for new orders when an upturn occurs. My hon. Friend knows of specific examples in his constituency where the benefits of the temporary employment subsidy have been demonstrated. The most recent measure to benefit Walsall has been—since 1


January 1979—the extension to the area of the small firms employment subsidy.
I hope that I have demonstrated to my hon. Friend's satisfaction that the Government have shown a good understanding of the issues facing industry in Walsall. We have, through the industrial strategy and policies for ensuring the retention and supply of trained manpower, helped the West Midlands economy to face up to the undeniable problems of economic change and international competition. One thing my hon. Friend can certainly be sure of: Walsall will not be neglected.
A lot of the activity is the result of this Government's commitment to an adequate level of public spending. It is very fine for the Opposition to talk about leaving the way free for the private sector. Walsall's case shows clearly that the public sector is needed, too—not least because it can provide the infrastructure that private firms must have if they are to invest.
Let me now turn briefly to environmental questions. As I mentioned earlier, one cannot separate the environmental problems of manufacturing districts from their industrial history. Of particular significance in the Black Country is the large amount of derelict land resulting from past mineral working. The Darlaston area is one of the most highly mineralised parts of the Black Country. Coal, fire clay and ironstone lie near the surface over the whole area. The working of minerals during the past 200 years has ben the foundation upon which Darlaston's metal industries have been based.
Reclamation of derelict land has been proceeding in Walsall since the start of the century, with Government assistance in recent years. For example, between 1974 and 1978, a total of 96 hectares of derelict land was reclaimed in Walsall, most of it with the help of Government grant. Since 8 June 1978, Walsall has been a derelict land clearance area, attracting 100 per cent, capital grant from my Department on approved expenditure on derelict land reclamation. I am expecting the introduction of the status to lead to a significant increase in the rate at which land is being reclaimed.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the issues associated with limestone. I

acknowledge and sympathise with Walsall's problems arising from these old workings. In my view, measures to deal with the problems could well form part of a badly needed range of policies to deal with urban dereliction—that is just what it amounts to in Walsall. However, these are difficult issues which are not confined to Walsall. Officials and Ministers will have to consider the whole question of what remedial measures and assistance may be made available to local authorities whose areas suffer from these underground dereliction problems.
That apart, the reclamation of derelict land is an important factor in the quality of life in great industrial areas. I am satisfied that the Walsall borough council and the West Midlands county council are now giving adequate priority to the reclamation programme.
In common with other authorities, Walsall borough council has had the problem of establishing its identity and confirming its policies since the reorganisation of 1974. The merger of areas—in this case Walsall with Aldridge and Brownhills—provides both problems and, in my view, opportunities. I wonder whether the problems to some extent account for the performance in housing which is less than satisfactory. The borough has an ageing stock of local authority housing, a large number of private sector dwellings which need modernisation, and a housing shortage. Therefore, it is regrettable that the borough council has underspent its housing allocations both in 1977–78 and—as now seems likely—in 1978–79. In these two years almost £6 million was forgone which could have been spent on improving Walsall's housing.
Whatever the reason behind the housing policies adopted by the borough council, neglect of proven need for rented accommodation in favour of speculative building for sale, a dislike of improvement programmes and disinclination to encourage the housing association movement neither seem helpful to the people of Walsall nor do they necessarily make the best use of public resources. I can only hope that this will change and that faster progress will be made in future. My Department, through its regional office and its headquarters advisory services, is ready to offer any help and counsel that the authority needs to pursue


an effective housing policy to benefit the people of Walsall.
I have mentioned quality of life. That is a phrase often used in connection with the major initiatives taken by the Government on the inner cities, including the passage of the Inner Urban Areas Act. I know that people in Walsall, and my hon. Friend in particular, were disappointed that Walsall was not designated as a special area under the Act.
However, as I have explained to my hon. Friend, the Government decided to concentrate the new powers of the Act into comparatively few districts, so that their effect would not be spread too thinly to make a real impact. That has meant some difficult choices and, on the basis of statistical and other indicators, Walsall came down on the non-designation side of the line. However, I welcome the chance of this debate to stress again to my hon. Friend and to hon. Members from other towns who may feel similar disappointment that designation under the Act is but one aspect of the Government's policy to shift the balance of national main programmes in favour of urban areas with substantial problems. The Government wish to be judged by the totality of their actions and, when this is done, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we will not be found wanting.
National programmes are moving in Walsall's favour. The shift in the emphasis of the rate support grant to metropolitan authorities, the extension of derelict land reclamation and the ability of the new housing investment programme system to respond sensitively to special housing needs are all examples of my Department's work.
I hope that my hon. Friend and the people of Walsall feel that the Government have recognised their needs and responded to them. I also hope that, as a consequence of the initiative taken by my hon. Friend, Walsall will be able to proceed to solve some of the long-standing problems that the town has inherited from its history.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Appropriation Act 1979
2. Finance Act 1979
3. Legal Aid Act 1979
4. Carriage by Air and Road Act 1979
5. International Monetary Fund Act 1979
6. Exchange Equalisation Account Act 1979
7. Prosecution of Offences Act 1979
8. Industry Act 1979
9. Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
10. Credit Unions Act 1979
11. Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1979
12. Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979
13. Banking Act 1979
14. Estate Agents Act 1979
15. Merchant Shipping Act 1979
16. Representation of the People Act 1979
17. Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979
18. Arbitration Act 1979
19. Crown Agents Act 1979
20. Leasehold Reform Act 1979
21. Weights and Measures Act 1979
22. Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979
23. Shetland Islands Council Order Confirmation Act 1979
24. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1979
25. Gairloch Piers Order Confirmation Act 1979

ADJOURNMENT

Question, That this House do now adjourn, put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Seven o'clock till Monday 9 April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.